FROM  THE  LIBRARY  OF 
REV.   LOUIS    FITZGERALD    BENSON.  D.  D. 

BEQUEATHED   BY  HIM  TO 

THE  LIBRARY  OF 

PRINCETON  THEOLOGICAL  SEMINARY 


IXirUdQIli 

Section 


'/GO 


II 


a 


EARLY    HISTORY    OF   THE 
CHRISTIAN    CHURCH 


/ 

EARLY     HISTORY     OF  ^-^ 

THE  CHRISTIAN  CHUR< 


FROM  ITS  FOUNDATION  TO 

THE    END    OF    THE     FIFTH 

CENTURY 

BY  MONSIGNOR   LOUIS  DUCHESNE 

HON.    D.LITT.    OXFORD,   AND   LITT.D.    CAMBRIDGE 
MKMBRE   DB   L'INSTITUT  DE  FRANCE 


RENDERED     INTO    ENGLISH 
FROM  THE  FOURTH  EDITION 


VOLUME  II 


NEW    YORK 

LONGMANS,    GREEN    AND    CO. 

FOURTH    AVENUE    AND   30th    STREET 

1920 


PREFACE 

I  PREFACED  my  first  volume  with  the  mention  of  Eusebius. 
And  it  is  again  under  the  patronage  of  the  Bishop  of 
Caesarea  that  the  present  one  begins.  The  last  three 
books  of  his  Ecclesiastical  History ,  and  the  four  books  of 
his  Life  of  Constantine^  deal  with  nearly  the  whole  of  the 
subject-matter  of  my  first  five  chapters.  Faithful  to  his 
custom  of  reproducing  his  authorities,  Eusebius  has 
preserved  to  us,  for  the  time  in  which  he  himself  lived,  a 
great  number  of  official  documents.  We  should  have  been 
glad  if  he  had  more  often  given  expression  to  his  own 
recollections  and  impressions ;  but  unfortunately,  the 
nearer  the  events  which  he  relates  approach  to  his  own 
time,  the  more  afraid  he  seems  to  be  of  seeing  them  clearly, 
and  above  all  of  relating  them.  With  the  exception  of  the 
general  glorification  of  the  Church,  and  the  special  eulogy 
of  Constantine,  everything  else  in  his  pages  is  enveloped 
in  so  much  reserve,  with  so  many  oratorical  safeguards, 
and  so  many  things  hinted  at  rather  than  affirmed,  that 
we  have  often  a  difficulty  in  finding  out  what  he  really 
means. 

After  Eusebius,  the  history  of  the  Church  remained  for 
a  long  time  neglected,  Rufinus  of  Aquileia  was  the  first 
to  give  himself  anew  to  the  task.  To  his  translation  of 
the  Ecclesiastical  History^  executed  at  the  time  when 
Alaric  was  devastating  Italy,  he  added  two  supplementary 
books,  in  which  the  narrative  was  continued  to  the  death  of 
Theodosius  (a.d.  395).  His  work  is  a  sufficiently  mediocre 
production,  hastily  put  together  and  devoid  of  interest  save 
for  the  last  pages,  where  the  author  relates  events  of  which 
he  had  himself  been  witness. 


viii  PREFACE 

The  subject  was  again  taken  up  at  Constantinople, 
shortly  before  the  middle  of  the  5th  century,^  by  two  men 
of  the  world,  Socrates  and  Sozomen.  The  first  of  these, 
at  least,  availed  himself  of  the  account  of  Rufinus,  which  a 
certain  Gelasius  had  translated  into  Greek.  About  the 
same  time,  Theodoret,  Bishop  of  Cyrrhos,  in  the  province 
of  Euphratesia,  also  undertook  the  task  of  continuing 
Eusebius.  And  finally,  Philostorgius,  an  Arian  of  the 
most  advanced  type,  a  Eunomian,  or  Anomoean,  applied 
himself  to  the  same  work,  in  the  spirit  of  his  own  sect. 
His  book  has  not  been  preserved  :  we  have  only  extracts 
from  it — very  copious  ones,  it  is  true — in  the  Bibliotheca  of 
Photius.  Philostorgius  is  interesting  in  one  respect — 
namely,  that  he  allows  us  to  hear  the  voice  of  a  party 
conquered  and  thereby  reduced  to  a  silence  deeper  than 
history  could  have  wished.  Theodoret  preserves  to  us 
traditions,  anecdotes,  and  legends  of  Antioch ;  Socrates 
and  Sozomen  render  us  the  same  service  for  Constanti- 
nople and  its  neighbourhood.  Socrates  had  had  much 
communication  with  the  Novatians  of  the  capital,  and 
they  had  given  him  many  curious  details  respecting 
their  Church.  But  the  most  important  point  is  that 
the  three  orthodox  historians  have  worked  over  collec- 
tions of  official  documents,  that  they  often  reproduce 
original  sources,  and  that,  even  when  they  do  not 
reproduce  or  quote  them,  they  betray  the  use  they  have 
made  of  such  documents  by  the  details  of  their  narrative. 
The  result  of  this  is,  that  although  when  they  speak  for 
themselves,  or  as  simply  following  oral  traditions,  their 
authority  is  weak,  they  afford  serious  guarantees  for  their 
statements  when  we  are  able  to  recover  underlying  their 
text  the  testimony  of  contemporary  documents.  This 
distinction  must  always  be  made ;  it  has  guided  me,  it  is 
hardly  necessary  to  say,  in  the  use  I  have  made  of  these 

I  The  priest  Philip  of  Side  had  published,  about  the  year  430, 
under  the  title  of  Christian  History^  an  immense  compilation,  destitute 
of  order  or  method.  It  is  now  lost  ;  but  what  Socrates  {Hist  vii. 
27)  and  Photius  (cod.  35)  say  of  it  is  not  of  a  character  to  make  us 
regret  its  loss  very  keenly. 


PREFACE  ix 

authors ;  it  must  never  be  lost  sight  of  in  estimating  the 
references  which  I  make  to  their  works. 

If  a  great  many  original  documents  were  within  the 
reach  of  these  authors,  it  was  because  various  collections 
of  them  had  been  made,  in  which  it  was  easy  to  find  them. 
St  Athanasius  compiled  one  of  these,  about  the  year  350, 
in  his  Apology  against  the  Avians,  a  pleading  pro  dovio, 
in  which  —  reinstalled,  in  fact,  in  his  see  of  i^lexan- 
dria,  but  deposed  in  law,  in  the  eyes  of  his  adversaries — 
he  set  himself  to  show  the  baselessness  of  his  sentence  of 
deposition,  and  to  establish  the  fact  that  it  had  been 
annulled  by  more  authoritative  decisions.  Other  docu- 
ments had  been  added  by  him  to  his  treatise  The  Decrees 
of  the  Council  of  Niccea,  which  is  of  rather  later  date  than 
his  Apology}  His  History  of  the  Arians,  addressed  to  the 
Monks,  also  contains  more  than  one  document  which  is 
both  authentic  and  interesting.  Finally,  in  the  year  367, 
when  he  was  in  the  fortieth  year  of  his  episcopate,  he 
caused  to  be  made  a  kind  of  history  of  the  vicissitudes 
through  which  the  Church  of  Alexandria  had  passed  since 
the  Great  Persecution.  Documents  of  great  interest  were 
included  in  this.  The  collection  has  not  been  preserved  in 
Greek  ;  but,  in  a  collection  of  canons,  known  by  the  name 
of  The  Collection  of  the  Deacon  Theodosius,  important 
fragments  of  a  Latin  translation  remain  to  us.- 

Moreover,  Athanasius  had  not  been  the  first,  nor  was 
he  the  only  person  who  in  this  way  gathered  together 
documents.  Even  before  the  Council  of  Nicaea,  Arius  and 
Alexander  had  brought  together  the  letters  of  their 
respective  adherents,  and  had  made  use  of  them  in  their 
polemics.  Towards  the  end  of  the  4th  century,  Sabinus, 
Bishop  of  Heraclea  for  the  "  Macedonian  "  party,  had  also 
compiled  a  collection  (Swaywy?/)  of  various  documents 
relating  to  Councils  of  the  Church,  from  quite  another 
point  of  view  from  that  of  Athanasius. 

'  Cf.  G.  Loeschcke,  in  the  Rheinisches  Museum,  vol.  lix.,  p.  45 1,  who 
thinks  that  he  is  able  to  identify  this  collection  with  the  enigmatical 
Synodicon  of  Athanasius  ;  E.  Schwartz,  in  the  Gottingen  Nachrichten, 
1904,  p.  391.  '^  Cf.  page  132,  infra. 

II  «2 


X  PREFACE 

Socrates  was  acquainted  with  this  collection  and  also 
with  the  others.  He  openly  quotes  Sabinus.  Sozomen,  who 
re-edited  Socrates  and  at  the  same  time  completed  his  work, 
did  not  confine  himself  to  reproducing  his  quotations.  He 
studied  the  documents  for  himself,  and  made  a  larger  and 
more  judicious  use  of  them,  but  without  quoting  the 
collection — a  characteristic  method  of  procedure.  We 
know  that  although  he  follows  Socrates  he  gives  the 
reader  no  sort  of  notice  of  this,  so  that  we  cannot  spare 
him  the  reproach  of  plagiarism. 

It  was  not  only  in  the  East  that  controversy  was 
carried  on  by  means  of  historical  dossiers  and  collections 
of  official  documents.  In  the  West  also  the  same  method 
was  observed.  About  the  time  when  the  long  career  of 
Eusebius  of  Caesarea  was  drawing  to  its  close,  the 
Catholics  of  Africa,  harassed  by  the  Donatists,  and  ill 
defended  against  them  by  the  imperial  authorities,  con- 
ceived the  idea  of  influencing  public  opinion  by  making 
known,  through  a  series  of  indisputable  documents,  the 
conditions  which  had  given  rise  to  that  lamentable  schism. 
With  this  end  in  view  was  drawn  up  the  collection  called 
Gesta  pnrgatio7iis  Caeciliani  et  Felicis,  which  long  served 
as  a  text-book  for  the  anti-Donatist  polemics,  and  was 
made  use  of  afterwards  by  St  Optatus  and  St  Augustine. 
As  in  the  Greek  collections,  a  brief  commentary  bound  the 
pieces  together,  and  formed  a  kind  of  historical  thread  of 
connection.^ 

It  was  a  collection  of  the  same  kind  that  St  Hilary  of 
Poitiers  formed  in  360,  at  Constantinople,  at  the  moment 
when  the  Nicene  orthodoxy  appeared  to  have  become 
obscured  in  the  unfaithfulness,  more  or  less  enforced,  alike 
of  the  Latin  and  the  Greek  episcopates.  Hilary  relates 
once  more,  in  opposition  to  the  partisans  of  the  Council  of 
Rimini  (Ariminum),  the  series  of  events  which  had 
happened  since  the  Council  of  Sardica  in  343.  In  the 
fragments  of  his  compilation'  which  have  come  down  to 

'  Sylloge  Optatiana,  following  St  Optatus  in  the  Vienna  edition, 
vol.  xxvi.,  p.  206  ;  cf.  my  memoir,  "  Le  dossier  du  Donatisme,"  in  the 
Melanges  de  PEcole  de  Rome^  vol.  x.  (1890). 


PREFACE  xi 

us  are  to  be  found  documents  of  later  date  than  the 
original  edition,  which  proves  that  it  must  have  been 
retouched  after  360,  no  doubt  by  others  than  the  author 
himself. 

Besides  these  collections  of  documents,  upon  which 
rest,  though  with  gaps,  the  statements  of  later  his- 
torians, the  latter  had  at  their  disposal,  as  we  ourselves 
have,  often  in  a  larger  measure,  a  considerable  body  of 
literature  on  these  subjects.  Hilary,  Athanasius,  Basil, 
the  two  Gregorys,  Epiphanius,  Ambrose,  and  Jerome, 
only  to  mention  the  most  celebrated,  have  left  us  an 
entire  library  on  which  historical  learning  has  drawn  for 
centuries. 

It  is  upon  this  whole  corpus  of  texts  that  my  own 
account  rests.  I  refer  to  them  with  moderation,  confining 
myself,  as  in  the  first  volume,  to  indicating,  here  and  there, 
the  authorities  to  be  consulted  upon  certain  debatable 
questions.  If  I  had  gone  more  deeply  into  bibliography 
and  critical  discussions,  the  notes  would  have  taken  up  so 
much  room  that  I  do  not  see  what  would  have  been  left 
for  the  text.  And  yet  this  includes  the  whole  period 
which  corresponds  to  the  six  volumes  of  the  late  Duke 
Albert  de  Broglie,  LEglise  et  Pevipire  romain  au  /V^^'^ 
Sz^c/e,  a  book  which  I  have  not  cited,  since  I  cite  only 
first-hand  authorities  or  special  treatises ;  but  one  which 
I  could  scarcely  omit  to  mention  here,  were  it  only  to  beg 
of  charitable  readers  not  to  remember  his  book  too  much 
while  they  are  reading  mine. 

Rome,  March  25,  1907. 


CONTENTS 


PAGE 

Preface,    ........       vii 


CHAPTER  I 

THE   GREAT   PERSECUTION 

Accession  of  Diocletian  :  the  Tetrarchy.  Persecution  decided 
upon  :  the  four  edicts.  Crisis  of  the  Tetrarchy :  Con- 
stantine  and  Maxentius.  AppHcation  of  the  first  edict  in 
Africa,  The  Terror  of  304.  The  canons  of  Peter  of 
Alexandria.  The  beginning  of  Maximin's  reign.  Death 
of  Galerius:  his  edict  of  toleration.  The  religious  policy 
of  Maximin.  His  end.  Licinius  at  Nicomedia  :  edicts  of 
pacification.  The  martyrs  of  Palestine,  of  Egypt,  and  of 
Africa.  Literary  controversies :  Arnobius,  Hierocles, 
Lactantius,       ....... 


CHAPTER  II 

CONSTANTINE,   THE   CHRISTIAN    EMPEROR 

Conversion  of  Constantine.  Religious  measures  in  the  West. 
The  Pagans  tolerated  and  the  Christians  favoured.  Licinius 
and  his  attitude  towards  the  Christians.  The  war  of  323  : 
Constantine  sole  Emperor.  Development  of  his  religious 
policy.  Measures  against  the  temples  and  the  sacrifices. 
Foundation  of  Churches  :  the  Holy  Places  of  Palestine. 
Foundation  of  Constantinople.     Death  of  Constantine,       .        45 


xiv  CONTENTS 

CHAPTER  III 

THE   SCHISMS   RESULTING    FROM   THE   PERSECUTION 

PAGE 

Pope  Marcellinus  and  his  memory.  Disturbances  at  Rome  with 
regard  to  apostates :  Marcellus,  Eusebius.  Egyptian 
quarrels  :  rupture  between  Bishops  Peter  and  Meletius. 
The  Meletian  schism.  Origins  of  the  Donatis-t  schism. 
Council  of  Cirta.  Mensurius  and  Cascilian,  Bishops  of 
Carthage.  Schism  against  Cascilian :  Majorinus.  Inter- 
vention of  the  Emperor.  Councils  of  Rome  and  of  Aries. 
Imperial  arbitration.  Resistance  of  the  Donatists  :  organ- 
ization of  the  schism,  ......         72 

CHAPTER  IV 

ARIUS   AND   THE   COUNCIL   OF    NIC^EA 

The  parishes  of  Alexandria.  Arius  of  Baucalis  :  his  doctrine. 
Conflict  with  traditional  teaching.  The  deposition  of 
Arius  and  his  followers.  Arius  is  supported  in  Syria  and 
at  Nicomedia.  His  return  to  Alexandria :  his  Thalia. 
Intervention  of  Constantine.  Debate  on  the  Paschal 
question.  The  Council  of  Niceea.  Presence  of  the 
Emperor.  Arius  again  condemned.  Settlement  of  the 
Meletian  affair,  and  of  the  Paschal  question.  Compilation 
of  the  Creed.  Disciplinary  canons.  The  Hofiioousios. 
First  attempts  at  reaction,      .  .  .  .  .98 

CHAPTER  V 

EUSEBIUS   AND   ATHANASIUS 

Eusebius  of  Caesarea  :  his  learning,  his  relations  with  Con- 
stantine. The  Homoousios  after  the  Council  of  Nicaea. 
Deposition  of  Eustathius  of  Antioch.  Reaction  against 
the  Creed  of  Nicaea.  Athanasius,  Bishop  of  Alexandria. 
First  conflicts  with  the  supporters  of  Meletius  and  of  Arius. 
Submission  of  Arius  :  his  recall  from  exile.  New  intrigues 
against  Athanasius.  Council  of  Tyre.  Deposition  of 
Athanasius.  His  first  exile.  Death  of  Arius.  Marcellus 
of  Ancyra :  his  doctrine,  his  deposition.  Writings  of 
Eusebius  of  Caesarea  against  Marcellus,       .  .  ,125 


CONTENTS  XV 

CHAPTER  VI 

THE   EMPEROR   CONSTANS 

PAGE 

The  heirs  of  Constantine.  Return  of  Athanasius.  Intrigues  of 
Eusebius  ;  the  rivalry  of  Pistus.  The  Pope  is  made  cog- 
nizant of  the  Alexandrian  affair.  The  intrusion  of  Gregory. 
Athanasius  in  Rome.  The  Easterns  and  Pope  Julius. 
Roman  Council  in  340.  Cancelling  of  the  sentences  pro- 
nounced in  the  East  against  Athanasius  and  Marcellus. 
Constans  sole  Emperor  in  the  West.  Dedication  Council 
at  Antioch  in  341.  Death  of  Eusebius  of  Nicomedia. 
Paul  of  Constantinople.  Council  of  Sardica  :  the  Eastern 
schism.  Negotiations.  Condemnation  of  Photinus. 
Athanasius  recalled  to  Alexandria.  African  affairs.  The 
Circumcellians.  Mission  of  Paul  and  Macarius.  Unity 
restored :  Council  under  Gratus,       .  .  .  -153 

CHAPTER  VH 

THE   TROSCRIPTION    OF   ATHANASIUS 

Assassination  of  Constans.  The  usurper  Magnentius.  Con- 
stantius  makes  himself  master  of  the  West.  The  two 
Caesars,  Gallus  and  Julian.  Deposition  of  Photinus. 
New  intrigues  against  Athanasius.  The  Council  of  Aries. 
Pope  Liberius.  Councils  of  Milan  and  of  Beziers.  Exile 
of  Lucifer,  Eusebius,  Hilary,  Liberius,  and  Hosius. 
Police  riots  at  Alexandria.  Assault  on  the  Church  of 
Theonas :  disappearance  of  Athanasius.  Intrusion  of 
George.     Athanasius  in  retirement,  ....       196 


CHAPTER  Vni 

THE   DEFEAT   OF   ORTHODOXY 

The  Church  of  Antioch  in  the  time  of  Bishop  Leontius. 
Paulinus  :  Flavian,  and  Diodore  :  Aetius  and  Theophilus. 
State  of  parties  in  357.  The  falling  away  of  Liberius.  The 
formulary  of  Sirmium  accepted  by  Hosius.  Anomoeans  and 
Homoiousians.  Western  protests.  Eudoxius  at  Antioch  : 
triumph  of  Aetius.  Basil  of  Ancyra  and  the  homoiousian 
reaction.     Return  of  Pope  Liberius.     Success  and  violence 


xvi  CONTENTS 

PAGE 

of  Basil:  his  defeat  by  the  advanced  party.  Formula  of 
359.  Councils  of  Ariminum  and  of  Seleucia.  Acacius  of 
Cassarea.  Development  of  events  at  Constantinople : 
general  prevarication.  Despair  of  Hilary.  The  Council 
of  360.  Eudoxius,  Bishop  of  Constantinople.  Meletius 
and  Euzoius  at  Antioch.  Julian  proclaimed  Augustus. 
Death  of  Constantius,  .....       218 


CHAPTER  IX 

JULIAN    AND   THE   PAGAN    REACTION 

Paganism  under  the  princes  of  the  house  of  Constantine.  The 
sacrifices  forbidden.  Decline  of  the  ancient  religions. 
Julian's  youth.  His  religious  development.  On  becoming 
Emperor,  he  declares  himself  a  Pagan.  Retaliation  of  the 
conquered  religion.  Murder  of  George  of  Alexandria. 
Writings  of  Julian  :  his  piety,  his  attempt  to  reform  Pagan- 
ism. His  attitude  towards  the  Christians.  Recall  of  the 
exiled  bishops.  Withdrawal  of  privileges  :  teaching  pro- 
hibited. Conflicts  and  acts  of  violence.  Rebuilding  of 
the  temple  at  Jerusalem.  Julian  and  the  people  of  Antioch. 
His  death,        .......      250 


CHAPTER  X 

AFTER  ARIMINUM 

The  Councils  of  Paris  and  of  Alexandria.  Restoration  of  the 
lapsed.  Lucifer,  Eusebius,  and  ApoUinaris.  Schism  at 
Antioch  :  Meletius  and  Paulinus.  Athanasius  exiled  in 
Julian's  reign.  His  relations  with  Jovian.  The  "  Acacians  " 
accept  the  Creed  of  Nicasa.  Valentinian  and  Valens. 
The  religious  policy  of  Valentinian.  Opposition  of  the 
Right  wing  :  Lucifer  and  his  friends.  Opposition  of  the 
Left :  Auxentius  of  Milan,  and  the  Danubian  bishops. 
Valens  and  the  formula  of  Ariminum.  Negotiations 
between  the  Homoiousians  and  Pope  Liberius.  The 
question  of  the  Holy  Spirit :  the  party  of  Macedonius. 
The  Anomoeans  :  Aetius  and  Eunomius.  Conflicts  between 
them  and  official  Arianism.     The  historian  Philostorgius,    .      269 


CONTENTS  xvii 

CHAPTER  XI 

BASIL   OF   C/ESAREA 

PAQB 

State  of  parties  in  the  east  of  Asia  Minor.  The  youth  of 
Basil  and  of  Gregory  of  Nazianzus.  Eustathius,  master  in 
asceticism,  afterwards  Bishop  of  Sebaste.  Basil,  a  soli- 
tary, afterwards  priest,  and  Bishop  of  Caesarea.  The 
religious  policy  of  Valens.  Death  of  Athanasius  :  Peter 
and  Lucius.  Valens  at  Caesarea.  Basil  and  Eustathius. 
Basil  negotiates  with  Rome.  His  rupture  with  Eustathius. 
Arian  intrigues.  Dorotheus  at  Rome.  Affairs  at  Antioch. 
Paulinus  recognized  by  Rome.  Vitalis.  The  heresy  of 
Apollinaris.  Eustathius  goes  over  to  the  Pneumatomachi. 
Dorotheus  returns  to  Rome.  Evolution  of  the  Marcellians. 
The  Goths.     Death  of  the  Emperor  Valens,  ,  .       301 

CHAPTER  XII 

GREGORY   OF    NAZIANZUS 

Gratian  and  Theodosius.  Return  of  the  exiled  bishops.  Death 
of  Basil.  The  Easterns  accept  the  conditions  of  Rome. 
Attitude  of  Theodosius.  Situation  at  Constantinople. 
Gregory  of  Nazianzus  and  his  church,  the  "Anastasis." 
Conflicts  with  the  Arians.  Alexandrian  opposition : 
Maximus  the  Cynic.  Gregory  at  St  Sophia.  The  Second 
CEcumenical  Council  (381).  Obstinacy  of  the  Mace- 
donians.  Installation  of  Gregory.  Death  of  Meletius : 
difficulties  with  regard  to  his  successor.  Resignation  of 
Gregory.  Nectarius.  The  canons.  Hostility  against 
Alexandria.  Flavian  elected  at  Antioch.  Protests  of  St 
Ambrose.  Roman  Council  in  382.  Letter  from  the 
Easterns,  .  .  .....       333 

CHAPTER  XIII 

POPE   DAMASUS 

The  West  and  the  Roman  Church  before  the  Emperor  Con- 
stantius.  Exile  of  bishops.  Intrusion  of  Felix.  The 
Pontifical  election  of  366  :  Damasus  and  Ursinus.  Riots  in 
Rome.  Rancour  of  Ursinus  against  Damasus.  The  sects 
at  Rome.     Damasus  and  the  secular  arm.    Councils  against 


xviii  CONTENTS 

PAGE 

the  Arians.  Ambrose,  Bishop  of  Milan.  Fresh  intrigues 
against  Damasus ;  Isaac  institutes  a  criminal  prosecution 
against  him.  Roman  Council  of  378.  Gratian's  Rescript 
to  Aquilinus.     Council   of  Aquileia.     Roman    Council   of 

382.  Jerome  and  his  early  career :  his  sojourn  in  the 
Syrian  desert.  His  relations  with  Pope  Damasus.  His 
success  in  Rome  :  Paula  and  Marcella.  The  inscriptions 
of  Damasus,  and  the  cult  of  the  martyrs.  Siricius  succeeds 
Damasus.     Departure  of  Jerome  for  Palestine,        .  .       355 

CHAPTER  XIV 

THE   MONKS   OF   THE   EAST 

Egypt,  the  fatherland  of  the  monks.  Antony  and  the  Anchorites. 
The  monks  of  Nitria.  PacomiusandCenobitism,  Schnoudi. 
Monastic  virtues.  Pilgrimages  to  the  Egyptian  solitaries. 
The  monks  of  Palestine  :  Hilarion  and  Epiphanius,  Sinai 
and  Jerusalem.  Monks  of  Syria  and  of  Mesopotamia. 
Monasticism  in  Asia  Minor :  Eustathius  and  St  Basil. 
Attitude  of  the  Church  and  of  the  Government,       .  .       385 

CHAPTER  XV 

THE   WEST   IN    THE   DAYS   OF   ST   AMBROSE 

St  Hilary  and  his  writings.  St  Martin  of  Tours.  Council  of 
Valence.  Priscillian  and  his  asceticism.  Spanish  dis- 
putes :  Council  of  Saragossa.  Attitude  of  Damasus,  of 
Ambrose,  and  of  Gratian.  Maximus  in  Gaul ;  the  trial  at 
Treves.  The  Ithacians.  Reaction  under  Valentinian 
II. :  the  schism  of  Fehx  ;  the  rhetorician  Pacatus.  Pris- 
cillianism  in  Galicia.  Council  of  Toledo  :  dissensions  in 
the  Spanish  episcopate.  The  Priscillianist  doctrine.  St 
Ambrose  and  the  Court  of  Justina.  Ambrose  and 
Theodosius.     Pope  Siricius.     Jovinian  and  St  Jerome,       .       414 

CHAPTER  XVI 

CHRISTIANITY   IN   THE   EAST   UNDER  THEODOSIUS 

Christian  settlements  north  of  the  Danube.  Ulfilas  and  the 
conversion  of  the  Goths.     The   sects.     The   assembly   in 

383.  Divisions  amongst  the  Arians  and  Eunomians.     The 


CONTENTS  xix 

PAGE 

Novatians.  Fanatical  sects :  the  Massalians.  Amphi- 
lochius,  Bishop  of  Iconium.  Gregory  of  Nyssa.  Gregory 
ofNazianzus.  Epiphanius  and  the  heretics.  Apollinaris  : 
his  teaching  and  his  propaganda.  Diodore  of  Tarsus. 
Flavian  and  Chrysostom.  The  schism  at  Antioch  :  Council 
of  CcEsarea.  Eusebius  of  Samosata.  Edessa  and  its 
legends :  St  Ephrem.  Palestine.  Cyril  of  Jerusalem. 
Pilgrimages  :  visit  of  Gregory  of  Nyssa.  Rufinus  and 
Jerome.  Arabia  :  the  cult  of  Mary.  Titus  of  Bostra  and 
his  successors.     The  Council  of  394,  .  .  .       448 


CHAPTER  XVII 

CHRISTIANITY,   THE   STATE    RELICION 

Paganism  after  Julian.  Attitude  of  Valentinian  and  of  Valens. 
Gratian.  The  Altar  of  Victory.  Pagan  reaction  in  Rome 
under  Eugenius.  Theodosius  :  the  temples  closed.  The 
temple  of  Serapis  at  Alexandria.  Popular  disturbances. 
Position  of  the  Christian  sects  at  the  accession  of  Con- 
stantine.  Laws  of  repression.  The  Novatians.  The 
Catholic  Church  alone  recognized.  Alliance  of  the  Church 
with  the  State.  Liberty,  right  of  property,  privileges. 
Intervention  of  the  State  in  religious  disputes,  in  the 
nomination  or  the  deprivation  of  bishops.  Episcopal 
elections.     Civil  jurisdiction  of  the  bishops,  .  .       496 


Index,       ........      5^7 


EARLY  HISTORY  OF  THE 
CHRISTIAN  CHURCH 

CHAPTER  I 

THE   GREx\T   PERSECUTION 

Accession  of  Diocletian  :  the  Tetrarchy.  Persecution  decided  upon  : 
the  four  edicts.  Crisis  of  the  Tetrarchy :  Constantine  and 
Maxentius.  Application  of  the  first  edict  in  Africa.  The  Terror 
of  304.  The  canons  of  Peter  of  Alexandria.  The  beginning  of 
Maximin's  reign.  Death  of  Galerius  :  his  edict  of  toleration. 
The  religious  policy  of  Maximin :  his  end.  Licinius  at 
Nicomedia  :  edicts  of  pacification.  The  martyrs  of  Palestine, 
of  Egypt,  and  of  Africa.  Literary  controversies  :  Arnobius, 
Hierocles,  Lactantius. 

I.   The  Emperor  Diocletian. 

When  Gallienus  was  assassinated  (March  22,  268),  the 
Empire,  invaded  and  torn  in  pieces,  was  at  its  lowest.  A 
two-fold  task  was  imposed  upon  the  heirs  of  the  son  of 
Valerian  —  the  reconstruction  of  the  frontier,  and  the 
restoration  of  unity.  The  upright  princes  who  succeeded 
one  another  during  the  following  sixteen  years,  Claudius 
II.,  Aurelian,  Tacitus,  Probus,  and  Carus,  laboured  at  this 
task  conscientiously  and  not  without  success.  Aurelian 
recovered  Gaul  from  the  native  princes  whom  it  had 
chosen,  and  deprived  the  Queen  of  Palmyra  of  the  govern- 
ment of  the  eastern  provinces.  As  to  the  frontier,  its  re- 
establishment  was  without  doubt  achieved,  but  only  by 
drawing  it  farther  back.  The  Empire  was  lopped  of 
II  A 


2  THE  GREAT  PERSECUTION  [cir.  i. 

everything  beyond  the  Rhine  and  the  Danube :  it  lost,  in 
Upper  Germany,  the  Agri  Decumates  (Swabia  and  the 
Black  Forest),  and  in  the  region  of  the  Carpathians  the 
entire  province  of  Dacia,  with  the  parts  of  the  two  Mcesias 
which  lay  beyond  the  Danube.  And  even  after  these 
readjustments  had  been  made,  a  feeling  of  perfect  security 
did  not  exist  in  the  interior  of  the  Empire.  The  towns 
surrounded  themselves  with  walls  raised  in  haste ;  and  it 
was  necessary  to  fortify  Rome  itself  The  enclosure 
which  protected  it  during  the  whole  of  the  middle  ages 
preserves  the  name  of  Aurelian.^ 

In  the  East,  war  with  the  Persians  was  almost  in- 
cessant. The  Emperor  Carus  perished  in  it  in  284, 
leaving  two  sons,  one  of  whom,  Carinus,  entrusted  with 
the  government  of  the  West,  had  remained  in  Italy.  The 
other,  Numerian,  had  followed  his  father  beyond  the 
Euphrates.  He  was  bringing  home  the  army,  when,  in  the 
neighbourhood  of  Byzantium,  he  was  found  dead  in  his 
tent.  The  generals,  without  troubling  themselves  about 
Carinus,  elected  one  of  their  own  number  in  the  place  of 
Numerian,  and  it  was  in  this  way  that  Diocletian,  com- 
mander of  the  imperial  guard  {comes  doniesticorunt)^ 
was  raised  to  the  throne  (September  17,  284).  Carinus 
marched  against  the  usurper,  came  up  with  him  in  Moesia, 
and  inflicted  a  few  defeats  upon  him ;  but  in  the  end 
he  was  abandoned  by  his  troops,  who  passed  over  to 
Diocletian. 

Diocletian  had  long  dreamed  of  the  sovereign  power. 
Trained  in  the  school  of  Aurelian  and  his  officers,  he  was  a 
real  soldier  and,  better  still,  a  clever  organizer.  When  he 
had  the  Empire  in  his  hands,  it  was  not  of  enjoying  it  that 
he  thought,  but  rather  of  restoring  it.  Before  all  things, 
stability  was  necessary.  Diocletian  deemed  that  the 
revolutions  and  rivalries  for  power  were  caused  by  the 
impossibility  of  a  single  man  governing  a  territory  of  such 
vast  extent,  and  above  all  directing  the  operations  of 
armies,  separated  by  such  great  distances  from  one  an- 

^  Homo,  Essai  sur  le  rcgne  de  I'einpereur  Aurclien^  p.  214  et  seq. 


V.  3]  THE  TETUARCHY  3 

other.  In  order  to  avoid  rivals,  he  gave  himself  colleagues. 
In  the  year  285,  one  of  his  companions-in-arms,  Maximian, 
was  adopted  by  him,  invested  with  the  title  of  Caesar,  and 
sent  to  Gaul  to  repress  the  insurrection  of  the  Bagauda;. 
In  the  following  year,  he  made  him  Augustus  and  entrusted 
to  him  the  government  of  the  West.  In  293  the  system 
was  perfected  :  each  of  the  two  Augusti  was  provided  with 
an  auxiliary  emperor,  who  had  the  title  of  Caesar  and  a 
definite  jurisdiction :  Constantius  the  Pale  (Chlorus)  in 
this  way  governed  Gaul  and  Britain,  with  Maximian ; 
while  Galerius  relieved  Diocletian  of  the  care  of  watching 
over  the  Danube  frontier. 

All  these  princes  were  natives  of  Illyricum,  and  of  low 
origin.  Maximian  and  Galerius  remained  under  the 
imperial  purple  the  men  they  had  always  been,  coarse 
soldiers,  cruel  on  occasion,  without  education  and  without 
morals ;  Constantius  seems  to  have  been  more  civilized. 
Diocletian  was  not  anxious  that  his  colleagues  should  have 
too  many  recommendations.  He  had  given  to  Maximian 
the  title  of  Herculms,  and  assumed  for  himself  that  of 
Jovius,  thus  indicating  plainly  his  own  part  in  the  imperial 
Olympus,  and  the  kind  of  service  he  expected  from  his 
assistants.  It  is  assuredly  to  him  that  we  must  refer  the 
whole  policy  of  the  Dyarchy  and  the  Tetrarchy,  especially 
the  whole  of  the  reforming  legislation,  by  which  he 
endeavoured  to  restore  order  in  the  finances,  in  the  army, 
and  in  the  general  management  of  public  affairs. 

The  leading  idea  of  his  system  was  an  absolute  central- 
ization, the  suppression  of  all  local  political  life,  of  every 
vestige  of  ancient  liberties  :  in  one  word.  Autocracy.  Dio- 
cletian is  the  founder  of  the  Byzantine  regime.  It  was 
indeed  no  very  considerable  change.  The  reformer  did 
but  consecrate  by  appropriate  institutions  the  tendencies 
of  the  situation  and  usages  which  were  already  established. 
Such  a  system  had  the  same  results  that  it  always  has: 
the  centralizing  organ  was  developed  at  the  expense  of  the 
body  which  it  was  supposed  to  direct ;  the  fiscal  system  at 
the  expense  of  general  prosperity ;  and  management  at 
the  expense  of  energy.     The  Empire  was  soon  a  prey  to 


4  THE  GREAT  PERSECUTION  [ch.  i. 

the  malady  of  its  government ;  the  time  was  to  come  when 
it  died  of  it. 

The  supreme  head  of  this  immense  hierarchy  of 
functionaries,  all  ornamented  with  the  most  high-sounding 
titles,  was  necessarily  obliged  to  rise  entirely  above  the 
ordinary  conditions  of  humanity.  The  person  of  the 
Emperor  was  sacred,  divine,  eternal ;  his  house  was  also 
divine  {donms  divina).  Therein  reigned  a  pomp  worthy 
of  Susa  and  of  Babylon  ;  the  Joviiis  of  Nicomedia  was 
scarcely  more  accessible  than  his  celestial  patron.  Things 
had  travelled  far  from  the  simple  life  and  familiar  manners 
which  Augustus  had  maintained  in  his  house  on  the 
Palatine. 

And  it  was  not  in  Rome  itself  that  this  Asiatic  pomp 
was  displayed.  The  ancient  mistress  of  the  world  was 
nothing  now.  Her  senate,  deprived  of  political  power  and 
closed,  since  the  time  of  Gallienus,  to  veteran  warriors, 
was  now  only  a  great  town  council.  For  the  crowd  which 
still  thronged  in  the  enclosure  of  Aurelian,  games  continued 
to  be  given  and  baths  to  be  opened  ;  but  they  no  longer 
saw  their  emperor.  Diocletian  reigned  at  Nicomedia  ;  his 
lieutenants  had  their  official  residences  at  Milan,  at  Treves, 
at  Sirmium.  No  doubt  it  was  well  that  the  emperors 
should  not  be  too  far  away  from  the  frontiers  ;  but  there 
were  other  reasons.  These  soldiers  of  fortune,  born  in  the 
least  cultured  provinces,  and  brought  up  in  the  camps 
on  the  Danube,  cared  nothing  at  all  for  Rome.  Her 
traditions  were  tiresome,  her  populace  always  ready  for 
seditious  movements ;  her  senate  might  remember  that  it 
had  once  been  supreme,  and  might  still  wish  to  be  of  some 
consequence.  On  the  death  of  Aurelian,  it  had  come  to 
life  for  a  brief  moment,  and  had  tried  to  take  part  in 
public  affairs.  It  was  far  better  to  keep  at  a  distance  from 
this  uncomfortable  city  of  Rome,  and,  since  the  Empire 
had  become  an  Oriental  monarchy,  to  instal  its  capital  in 
the  Orient.  Diocletian  well  understood  this,  and  so  did 
Constantine  after  him. 

Amongst  the  reforms  introduced  at  this  time,  it  is 
fitting   to   mention    here    the    new    distribution    of    the 


p.  5]       ORGANIZATION  OF  THE  PROVINCES  5 

provinces.  Diocletian  increased  their  number.  Before  his 
time,  there  were  already  sixty  of  them  :  he  left  ninety-six. 
It  is  true  that  this  partition  was  compensated  for  by  the 
creation  oi dioceses^  more  comprehensive  divisions,  in  each  of 
which  several  provinces  were  included.  Each  diocese  was 
governed  by  a  vicariiis — that  is  to  say,  by  a  representative 
of  the  prefect  of  the  imperial  praetorium.  This  organiza- 
tion was  in  many  places  appropriated  for  the  ecclesiastical 
use.  In  the  East,  from  the  time  of  the  Council  of  Nicjea, 
the  groupings  of  bishops  corresponded  almost  every- 
where with  the  new  provincial  divisions  :  the  bishop  of  the 
city  in  which  the  governor  resided,  of  the  metropolis,  as  it 
was  called,  was  the  head  of  the  episcopate  of  the  province. 
It  was  he  who  presided  over  the  elections,  when  a  see 
became  vacant,  who  convened  his  colleagues  in  council  and 
presided  over  their  meetings.  This  system  was  adopted 
later  on  in  a  great  part  of  the  West.  These  imperial 
dioceses  also  served,  in  a  certain  measure,  to  settle  the 
boundaries  of  the  ecclesiastical  jurisdictions.  It  was  in 
this  way  that  Diocletian  appears  as  of  some  importance  in 
the  organization  of  the  Church.  But  he  has  claims  of  a 
very  different  character  to  figure  in  its  history. 

2.   TJie  Edicts  of  Persecution. 

During  the  long  peace  which  followed  the  persecu- 
tion of  Valerian,  the  Christian  propaganda  had  made 
enormous  progress.  Not  to  speak  of  Edessa  and  the 
kingdom  of  Armenia,  where  Christianity  was  already 
the  dominant  religion,  there  were  regions  in  the 
Empire  in  which  it  was  not  far  from  representing 
the  half,  or  even  the  majority,  of  the  population.  This 
was  the  case,  for  instance,^  in  Asia  Minor.  In  northern 
Syria,  in  Egypt,  and  in  Africa,  the  Christians  were  also 
very  numerous.  At  the  councils  of  the  time  of  St  Cyprian 
we   find    as    many   as   ninety   bishops    mentioned,   which 

^  Dr  Harnack,  Die  Mission  imd  Ausbrcifung  des  Christentufiis^ 
p.  539  et  seq.  (2nd  ed.,  vol.  ii.,  p.  276  et  seq.\  gives  more  precise 
estimates,  including  a  certain  amount  of  conjecture,  but  of  a  very 
probable  kind. 


6  THE  GREAT  PERSECUTION  [ch.  t. 

presupposes  a  much  greater  number  of  churches  at 
that  time,  and  in  the  forty  or  fifty  years  which  followed 
many  more  must  have  been  organized.  The  sixty 
Italian  bishops  assembled  in  251  by  Pope  Cornelius 
allow  of  a  similar  estimate  with  regard  to  the  Italian 
peninsula.  In  the  south  of  Spain  and  of  Gaul,  in  Greece, 
and  in  Macedonia,  the  spread  of  the  Gospel,  without 
perhaps  having  made  so  much  progress,  must  nevertheless 
have  obtained  important  results.  In  other  countries,  such 
as  central  and  southern  Syria,  the  north  of  Italy,  the 
north,  centre,  and  west  of  Gaul,  in  the  island  of  Britain, 
in  the  mountains  of  the  Alps,  the  Pyrenees,  and  the 
Hemus,  the  situation  was  quite  different.  The  ancient 
cults  were  still  in  favour,  and  groups  of  Christians  were 
only  to  be  found  by  way  of  exceptions. 

This  is  a  general  account  of  the  state  of  things,  but 
in  each  country  the  situation  varied  according  to  local 
circumstances.  Not  far  from  Edessa,  notable  for  its 
Christianity,  Harran  adhered  obstinately  to  its  old  Semitic 
religion,  which  it  preserved  until  the  advent  of  Islam. 
Certain  towns  of  the  Lebanon,  such  as  Heliopolis,  or  of 
the  seaboard  of  Syria,  such  as  Gaza,  contained  either 
a  very  small  number  of  the  faithful,  or  none  at  all.  In 
Phrygia  were  to  be  found  small  towns,  where  everyone, 
including  the  magistrates,  professed  Christianity,  Christian 
duumvirs  and  curators  were  not  rare ;  there  were  even 
Christian  flauiens}  The  bishops  were  in  frequent  com- 
munication with  the  governors  and  the  financial  officials ; 
they  were  treated  with  respect;  much  favour  was  shown 
them.  And  further,  they  had  no  longer  any  difficulty 
in  rebuilding  the  old  churches,  in  laying  the  foundation 
of  new  ones,  and  in  holding  largely  attended  meetings 
on  festivals. 

And  there  was  something  more  significant  still,  from 
the  point  of  view  of  the  progress  of  Christianity  and  the 
liberty  of  action  which  it  enjoyed,  in  the  fact  that  not 
only    municipal   functions,  but    even    the   government   of 

^  See  vol.  i.,  p.  378. 


p.  8]  DIOCLETIAN  AND  RELIGION  7 

provinces  was  often  entrusted  to  Christians.  The  palace 
itself,  the  divine  dwelling  of  the  imperial  Jupiter,  was 
full  of  Christians ;  they  occupied  there  the  superior 
positions  of  the  central  administration.  Several  of 
them — Peter,  Dorotheus,  and  Gorgonius — figure  in  the 
number  of  the  persons  most  highly  placed  in  the  favour 
of  the  emperor.  The  government  offices,  and  the 
employments  attached  to  the  personal  service  of  the 
sovereign,  were,  to  a  large  extent,  occupied  by  Christians. 
The  Empress  Prisca  herself  and  her  daughter  Valeria 
seem  to  have  had  very  close  relations  with  Christianity. 

But  it  was  not  so  with  Diocletian  himself.  Whatever 
may  have  been  his  toleration  for  the  opinions  of  his 
subjects,  his  officials,  and  his  family,  he,  for  his  part, 
preserved  his  attachment  to  the  old  customs  of  the 
Roman  worship.  He  frequented  the  temples  and 
sacrificed  to  the  gods,  without  any  mystic  ideas,  without 
ostentation,  but  with  a  deep  devotion,  deeming,  no  doubt, 
that  he  was  thus  fulfilling  his  duty  as  a  man  and,  above 
all,  as  a  sovereign.  Such  a  state  of  mind  could  not  make 
him  really  favourable  to  rival  religions.  "  The  immortal 
gods,"  he  says  in  his  rescript  against  the  Manicheans, 
"  have  condescended,  in  their  providence,  to  entrust  to 
the  enlightenment  of  wise  and  good  men  the  responsi- 
bility of  deciding  as  to  that  which  is  good  and  true. 
No  one  is  allowed  to  resist  their  authority :  the  old 
religion  must  not  be  criticized  by  a  new  one.  It  is  a 
great  crime  to  go  back  on  anything  which,  having 
been  established  by  our  forefathers,  is  now  in  possession 
and  in  use." 

It  was  comparatively  easy  to  apply  these  principles 
to  Manicheism,  which  had  been  quite  recently  imported 
from  abroad.  But  with  regard  to  the  Christian  beliefs 
the  same  might  already  be  said  as  of  the  old  Roman 
cults  :  statum  et  cursnni  tencnt  ac  possident.  Besides,  they 
were  already  too  extensively  propagated  to  allow  any 
reasonable  hope  of  extirpating  them.  Decius  and 
Valerian  had  tried  to  do  so ;  and  it  was  known  how 
unsuccessful    their   efforts   had    proved.     Since   then    the 


8  THE  GREAT  PERSECUTION  [ch.  i. 

position  of  Christians  had  grown  and  had  been  reinforced : 
a  new  attack  upon  them  could  only  meet  with  still 
greater  obstacles. 

For  a  long  time  the  good  sense  of  the  emperor  led 
him  to  avoid  any  kind  of  persecution.  At  length,  how- 
ever, his  ideas  underwent  a  change.  It  is  possible  that, 
like  so  many  other  reformers,  he  was  led  astray  by  the 
chimera  of  religious  unity,  a  baleful  and  lusty  chimera, 
which  still  claims  its  victims.  However,  the  details 
which  have  remained  to  us  with  regard  to  his  attitude 
do  not  indicate  any  such  point  of  view.  Diocletian  seems 
to  have  discovered,  from  a  certain  definite  point  of  time, 
that  there  were  too  many  Christians  in  his  palace  and 
in  his  army.  To  remedy  this  inconvenience,  there  was 
really  no  necessity  to  declare  a  war  of  extermination 
on  Christianity.  A  few  personal  measures,  a  few  dis- 
missals, would  have  settled  everything.  Even  among  the 
Christians  themselves  such  a  course  would  have  found 
supporters.  There  were  not  wanting  among  the  faithful 
those  who  disapproved  of  military  service,^  and  who  did 
not  look  at  all  favourably  upon  those  of  their  brethren 
who  were  engaged  in  public  offices.  The  matter  might 
well  have  ended  here.  But  Diocletian  was  old  :  his  power 
of  resistance  to  external  influence  was  enfeebled,  and  he 
was  surrounded  by  a  powerful  party  which  clamoured 
for  radical  measures.  Its  head,  the  ferocious  Caesar  of 
Illyricum,  found  means  of  bending  the  aged  Augustus 
to  his  ends,  and  of  making  him  commit  the  enormity 
to  which  his  name  remains  attached. 

1  It  is  to  holders  of  this  view  that  there  belong  several  African 
martyrs  of  this  time,  in  regard  to  whom  we  possess  authentic  docu- 
ments. Maximilian,  a  conscript,  was  executed  for  refusing  military 
service,  at  Theveste,  on  March  12,  295.  The  proconsul  Dion 
in  vain  adduced  in  opposition  to  him  the  Christians  who  served 
in  the  imperial  army.  "  They  know  what  they  ought  to  do,"  replied 
Maximilian.  "  I  am  a  Christian,  and  I  cannot  do  what  is  wrong." 
At  Tangier,  the  centurion  Marcellus  who  refused  to  continue  his 
military  service,  and  the  clerk  of  the  court,  Cassian,  who  refused 
to  write  the  sentence  rendered  against  Marcellus,  also  sufifered 
(October  30  and  December  3  :  the  year  is  uncertain). 


p.  10]      THE  BEGINNING  OF  PERSECUTION  9 

Lactantius  ^  gives  as  the  origin  of  the  persecution  an 
event  which  is  said  to  have  happened  in  the  eastern 
provinces.  Diocletian  was  about  to  sacrifice,  and  to 
consult  the  entrails  of  the  victims,  when  some  Christians 
among  his  attendants  made  the  sign  of  the  Cross.  The 
haruspex,  whose  operations  that  day  had  led  to  no  result, 
observed  the  gesture,  and  informed  the  emperor  of  it, 
complaining  of  the  profane  persons  who  thus  disturbed 
his  ceremonies.  Diocletian  was  furious,  and  at  once  com- 
manded that  not  only  the  actual  offenders,  but  all  the 
officers  of  his  palace  should  be  compelled  to  sacrifice, 
and  that,  in  case  of  refusal,  they  should  be  beaten  with 
rods.  Letters  were  immediately  despatched  to  the 
various  military  commanders,  to  the  effect  that  all 
soldiers  were  to  sacrifice,  under  pain  of  being  excluded 
from  the  army. 

Whatever  influence  the  fact  just  related  may  have  had 
upon  the  emperor's  decision,  it  is  certain  that  measures 
were  taken  to  eliminate  from  the  army  the  Christian 
element  which  it  contained.-  A  magister  militum,  named 
Veturius,  was  specially  appointed  to  carry  out  this  order. 
A  very  large  number  of  Christians  were  thus  forced  to 
renounce  the  profession  of  arms  and  accepted  the 
situation.  There  was  no  other  penalty  attached ;  only  in 
one  or  two  cases,  Eusebius  tells  us,'was  death  inflicted  as  a 
punishment,  no  doubt  on  account  of  special  circumstances. 
This  was  in  the  year  302, 

On  his  return  from  the  East,  Diocletian  passed  the 
whole  winter  at  Nicomedia.  Galerius  rejoined  him  there, 
and  devoted  himself  with  all  his  energies  to  inducing  the 
emperor  to  sanction  more  severe  measures.  It  is  said 
that  he  was  incited  to  this  by  his  mother,  an  aged  and 
very  devout  Pagan  with  an  implacable  hatred  of 
Christians.^     Diocletian  resisted.     "  What  is  the  use,"  he 

^  De  vwrtibus  persecutorum^  10. 

2  Jbid.^  10 ;  Eusebius,  H.  E.  viii.  1,4;  C/trofiicon,  ad  ann.  2317. 

^  Lactantius  does  not  say,  but  we  may  suspect,  that  there  was 
here  a  conflict  of  feminine  influences.  The  princesses  of  Nicomedia 
were   Christians    or   favourable    to   the    Christians ;    this    was   quite 


10  THE  GREAT  PERSECUTION  [ch.  i. 

said,  "  of  causing  trouble  everywhere,  and  shedding 
torrents  of  blood?  The  Christians  have  no  fear  of 
death.  It  is  quite  sufificient  to  prevent  the  soldiers  and 
the  people  about  the  palace  from  following  their  religion." 
Galerius  persevered,  and  returned  incessantly  to  the 
subject.  At  last  the  emperor  made  up  his  mind  to 
summon  a  council  of  friends,  military  officers  and  civil 
functionaries.  Opinions  were  divided.  As  usual,  those 
who  were  urgent  in  the  matter — behind  whom  might  be 
detected  the  influence  of  Galerius,  the  Caesar  of  to-day, 
the  Augustus  of  to-morrow  —  drew  over  those  who 
hesitated  to  their  side.  Yet  the  wise  old  emperor  still 
refused  to  yield.  It  was  at  last  agreed  to  consult  the 
oracle  at  Miletus,  the  Didymean  Apollo.  The  priestess,^ 
as  can  easily  be  imagined,  did  not  fail  to  unite  her 
inspiration  to  the  wishes  of  Galerius  and  his  party.  And 
the  conflict  was  decided  upon. 

If  Galerius  could  have  had  his  own  way  entirely, 
extreme  measures  would  have  been  taken  at  the  outset, 
and  the  stakes  would  have  been  lighted  everywhere. 
But  Diocletian  did  not  wish  for  bloodshed  ;  and,  for  the 
moment,  his  will  prevailed.  An  edict  was  prepared  in 
accordance  with  his  views.  On  the  day  before  its 
proclamation  (February  23,  303),  police  officers  proceeded 
at  daybreak  to  the  church  of  Nicomedia,  a  large  edifice 
in  full  view  of  the  imperial  palace.  The  sacred  books 
were  seized  and  thrown  into  the  fire,  the  furniture  was 
given  up  to  pillage,  and  the  church  itself  demolished  from 
top  to  bottom.^ 

On  the  next  day  (February  24)  the  edict  was 
published.  It  commanded  that  throughout  the  whole 
Empire  the  churches  should  be  demolished,  and  the 
sacred    books    destroyed     by    fire.      All     Christians     in 

enough  to  make  the  ladies  of  the  rival  imperial  establishment  wish 
for  the  condemnation  of  Christians  to  death. 

1  It  is,  I  think,  to  this  consultation  that  the  recollections  of 
Constantine  refer,  as  we  have  them  in  Eusebius,  Vita  Cotjsiantini,  ii. 
50,51. 

^  Lactantius,  De  mort.  pers.,  13  ;  Eusebius,  H.  E.  viii.  2  ;  Martyr. 
Pal.,  preface^ 


]•.  13]  DIOCLETIAN'S  FIRST  EDICT  11 

possession  of  public  offices,  dignities,  or  privileges,  were 
deprived  of  them  ;  they  lost  also  the  right  of  appearing 
in  a  court  of  justice  to  accuse  anyone  of  injuries,  or  adultery, 
or  theft.     Christian  slaves  might  no  longer  be  set  free.^ 

No  sooner  was  the  edict  posted  up  than  it  was  torn 
in  pieces  by  a  Christian  of  Nicomedia,  whose  name  has 
not  been  preserved,  but  who  paid  for  his  daring  by  dying 
at  the  stake.  A  few  days  afterwards  a  fire  broke  out 
in  the  palace.  Galerius  at  once  accused  the  Christians  of 
having  kindled  it  ;  they  repudiated  the  accusation,  saying 
that  he  wished  in  this  way  to  excite  Diocletian's  anger 
against  them.  While  the  emperor  was  making  enquiries 
to  obtain  light  on  the  affair,  a  second  fire  broke  out. 
Galerius,  although  it  was  winter-time,  made  haste  to  leave 
Nicomedia,  declaring  that  he  did  not  wish  to  stay  there 
to  be  burnt  alive. 

Convinced  at  last,  Diocletian  determined  to  re- 
commence the  horrors  of  Nero's  reign.  The  whole  of 
the  palace  suffered  in  consequence.  His  wife  and 
daughter  were  forced  to  sacrifice ;  Adauctus,  the  head  of 
the  fiscal  administration ;  the  eunuchs  most  in  favour, 
Peter,  Dorotheus,and  Gorgonius  ;  the  Bishop  of  Nicomedia, 
Anthimus ;  priests,  deacons.  Christians  of  every  age,  even 
women,  were  burnt  or  drowned  wholesale.  Thus  was 
expiated  the  crime,  clearly  a  faked  one,  of  having  set  fire 
to  the  sacred  palace  and  attempted  to  destroy  two 
emperors  at  once. 

But  measures  did  not  stop  with  this  local  repression. 
Seditious  movements  having  occurred  in  the  direction 
of  Melitene  and  in  Syria,  they  were  declared  to  be  the 
work  of  Christians.  Other  general  edicts  followed  the 
first-:  they  began  by  commanding  the  arrest  of  all  the 
heads  of  the  Churches,  bishops,  priests,  and  other  clerics ; 
and  then  that  they  should  be  compelled  to  sacrifice  by 
every  means  available. 

'  This  first  edict  reached  Palestine  towards  the  end  of  March,  just 
when  the  Feast  of  Easter  was  being  celebrated  (Eusebius,  H.  E. 
viii.  2). 

^  Eusebius,  Martyr.  Pal.,  preface. 


12  THE  GREAT  PERSECUTION  [ch.  i. 

On  September  17,  303,  began  the  twentieth  year  of 
the  reign  of  Diocletian.  On  this  occasion  an  amnesty 
was  granted  to  condemned  criminals^;  but  we  have 
no  reason  to  think  that  it  included  the  imprisoned 
confessors,  who,  in  the  eyes  of  the  law,  were  neither 
prisoners  awaiting  trial  nor  condemned  criminals,  but 
rebels.  The  aged  emperor  resolved  to  celebrate  at 
Rome  the  feast  of  his  vicennalia.  It  took  place  on 
November  20.  The  construction  of  his  celebrated  baths 
was  not  sufficiently  advanced  for  the  ceremony  of  their 
dedication  to  be  possible ;  it  was  therefore  postponed. 
Besides,  Diocletian  was  never  happy  on  the  banks  of 
the  Tiber.  His  Oriental  magnificence,  his  austere  and 
melancholy  manners,  made  no  impression  on  the  turbulent 
Roman  populace :  they  wearied  him  so  much  with  their 
familiarities  and  pleasantries,  that  he  did  not  even  stay 
in  Rome  till  January  i,  the  day  on  which  he  was  to 
inaugurate  his  ninth  consulate,  but  set  out,  in  the  depth 
of  winter,  for  Ravenna.  In  the  course  of  this  unseasonable 
journey,  he  contracted  an  illness  which  lasted  a  long  time, 
and  became  more  severe  on  his  return  to  Nicomedia.  In 
this  condition  of  affairs,  he  himself,  the  East,  and  in  some 
ways  the  whole  Empire,  were  in  the  hands  of  Galerius. 
The  war  against  Christians  was  waged  with  still  more  fury. 
A  fourth  edict  appeared.  This  time,  there  was  no  longer 
any  question  of  special  classes  of  persons :  all  Christians, 
without  distinction,  were  commanded  to  sacrifice.  After 
following  Nero,  a  return  had  been  made  to  the  policy  of 
Valerian ;  now  it  was  the  work  of  Decius  that  was 
resumed. 

3.   TJie  Dislocatiofi  of  the  Tetrarchy. 

It  was  a  terrible  year,  not  only  for  the  Christians,  but 
also  for  the  emperor.  His  health  went  from  bad  to  worse. 
In  the  middle  of  December,  it  was  reported  that  he  was 
dead  ;  he  was  not  dead,  but  when  he  showed  himself  again 
in  public,  on  March  i,  305,  he  could  scarcely  be  recognized. 
Weakened  in  body  and  spirit,  he  allowed   himself  to  be 

^  Eusebius,  Mai-tyi'.  Pal.  1. 


i>.  15]  GALERIUS  AS  EMPEROR  13 

persuaded  by  Galerius,  that  the  time  had  come  for  him 
to  resign.  Galerius  had  suggested  the  same  idea  to 
Maximian  Herculius,  at  the  same  time  threatening  him 
with  civil  war.  This  double  abdication  entailed  the 
elevation  of  Constantius  and  Galerius  to  the  position  of 
Augusti.  Galerius  appointed  the  two  new  Caesars — 
Severus,  a  drunken  soldier,  and  Daia,  a  rough-hewn 
barbarian,  who  was  called  Maximinus  to  disguise  him  as 
a  Roman.  With  two  such  colleagues  as  these,  the  new 
Augustus  of  the  East  hoped  to  be  almost  the  sole  head  of 
the  Empire ;  for  Constantius,  far  away  and  pacific  in 
character,  and  besides  of  enfeebled  health,  would  be  no 
obstacle.  Maximin  Daia  was  set  over  the  diocese  of  the 
Orient — that  is  to  say,  over  Syria  and  Egypt.  Galerius 
united  to  his  own  Illyricum  the  dioceses  of  Thrace,  Asia, 
and  Pontus;  Spain  was  added  to  the  jurisdiction  of 
Constantius  ;  Italy  and  Africa  fell  to  the  lot  of  Severus. 

This  satisfactory  arrangement  was  disturbed  by  the 
revolt  of  the  natural  heirs.  If  Diocletian  and  Galerius  had 
no  male  children,  it  was  not  so  with  Constantius  and 
Maximian,  and  their  natural  heirs  did  not  at  all  relish 
the  new  system  of  succession,  Constantine,  the  son  of 
Constantius,  was  at  Nicomedia  when  the  change  was  made  ; 
he  was  a  hostage  given  by  Constantius.^  The  latter,  now 
become  Augustus,  demanded  the  return  of  his  son,  and 
Galerius  was  obliged  to  let  him  go,  though  he  did  it  with 
much  reluctance.  What  he  feared,  actually  happened. 
The  Emperor  Constantius  died  soon  after  at  York ;  in 
his  last  moments,  he  commended  his  son  to  the  soldiers 
as  his  successor,  and  these,  as  soon  as  he  had  breathed  his 
last,  acclaimed  the  young  prince  as  emperor  (July  25, 
306).  It  was  a  serious  annoyance  to  Galerius  ;  but  as 
York  was  a  long  way  from  Nicomedia,  and  as  Con- 
stantine was  not  without  adherents,  he  was  obliged  to  re- 
cognize him.  At  the  same  time,  the  title  of  Augustus  was 
not  conceded  ;  Galerius  proclaimed  Severus  as  Augustus 
in  the  place  of  Constantius  Chlorus,  and   Constantine  as 

^  Eusebius  (  V.  C.  i.  19)  had  seen  him  journeying  through  Palestine 
in  the  train  of  the  Emperor  Diocletian. 


14  THE  GREAT  PERSECUTION  [ch.  i. 

Cctsar  in  the  place  of  Severus.  The  Tetrarchy  was  re- 
constituted with  the  two  Augusti,  Galerius  and  Severus, 
and  the  two  Caesars,  Maximin  and  Constantine. 

At  the  same  time  as  Constantine  succeeded  his  father, 
Maxentius,  the  son  of  Maximian,  profiting  by  the  state  of 
abandonment   in  which  the  emperors  had  left  Old  Rome, 
seized    upon   the    government    there,   without    troubling 
himself  at  all  about  the  Tetrarchy.     Notwithstanding  his 
dissolute  morals,  which  recalled  the  days  of  Commodus, 
this  young  man  knew  how  to  please  the  Romans.     As  a 
protest  against   the  new  capitals,  he  reinstated    the  old 
forms  of  worship  and  the  ancient  legends  in  their  former 
position  of  honour ;  he  restored  the  Forum  and  the  Sacred 
Way,  and  near  the  latter  he  raised  a  magnificent  basilica. 
Severus  tried   in  vain  to  dispute  the  position  with  him  ; 
his  soldiers  deserted  him.      They  were  soldiers  of  the  old 
Maximian,  and  rallied  all  the  more  readily  round  his  son 
because  Maximian  himself,  issuing  from  his  retreat,  had 
just  reassumed  the  purple,  with  the  title  of"  Augustus  for 
the  second  time"  {bis  Augustus).     This  reappearance   of 
Maximian  put  the  last  touch  to  the  disorder.      Severus 
had     been     driven    to    suicide ;     Galerius     hastened     to 
avenge  him  ;  but,  as  he  drew  near  to  Rome,  the  attitude 
of  his  soldiers  decided  him  to  return  home.     Maxentius, 
now  feeling  his  hands  free,  proclaimed  himself  Augustus 
(October  27,  307).     However,  the  old  Maximian,  having 
now  quarrelled  with  his  son,  betook  himself  to  Gaul  and 
joined    Constantine.     There   he   tried,   by  making  use  of 
his   support,   still   to   play    a   part ;    then    abandoned   his 
protector,  returned  to  him  again,  betrayed  him,  and  finally 
was    either    put    to    death,   or    forced    to    be    his    own 
executioner  by  the  advice  of  his  host  (310). 

Galerius,  in  search  of  a  second  Augustus,  had  thought 
(November  11,  308)  of  giving  this  title  to  Licinius,  one 
of  his  old  companions-in-arms.  Maximin  at  once  pro- 
tested :  from  his  distant  diocese,  he  saw  with  jealousy 
this  newcomer  attaining  supreme  honours  at  one  stroke. 
Constantine  might  well  have  raised  the  same  objections. 
Galerius,  to  pacify  them,  gave  them  both  the  new  title  of 


V.  18]       CONSTANTINE  AND  HIS  AMBITION  15 

"  son  of  the  Augusti " ;  some  months  later,  he  went  the 
whole  way  and  made  them  full  Augusti.  There  were 
thus  four  emperors  of  the  first  rank. 

When  Galerius  died,  in  May  311,  Licinius  and 
Maximin  hastened  to  claim  his  inheritance  ;  however,  an 
arrangement  was  concluded,  by  virtue  of  which  the 
Bosphorus  became  their  common  boundary.  In  this 
way  the  empire  of  Maximin  comprehended  Asia  Minor, 
with  Syria  and  Egypt ;  that  of  Licinius  stretched  from 
the  Bosphorus  to  the  Alps  :  theoretically,  it  extended  also 
to  Italy  and  Africa  ;  but,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  these  countries 
obeyed  Maxentius,  an  illegitimate  emperor  from  the  point 
of  view  of  the  law  of  the  Tetrarchy,  but  in  reality  firmly 
established  in  his  power. 

Constantine,  meanwhile,  kept  his  position  in  Gaul, 
manoeuvring  skilfully  in  the  midst  of  all  these  conflicts, 
and  no  doubt  meditating  the  design  which  he  soon 
accomplished — that  of  annihilating  all  his  rivals,  by 
making  use  of  some  in  order  to  rid  himself  of  the  others. 

It  was  with  Maxentius  that  the  process  of  simplification 
began.  After  making  sure  of  the  moral  support  of 
Licinius,  to  whom  Maximin  was  causing  some  useful 
feelings  of  alarm,  Constantine  invaded  Italy,  inflicted 
several  defeats  upon  the  partisans  of  the  "  tyrant,"  and 
finally  met  him  in  the  ever-famous  battle  near  the  Milvian 
Bridge  (October  28,  312).  Maxentius  perished  in  the 
waters  of  the  Tiber ;  Constantine  entered  Rome,  and  was 
at  once  recognized  throughout  the  whole  of  Italy  and  in 
Africa.  The  following  year,  the  hands  of  Licinius  were 
free  to  attack  Maximin.  The  infamous  Daia,  defeated  in 
Thrace  on  April  30,  recrossed  the  Bosphorus,  and  then 
the  Taurus,  and  finally  poisoned  himself  at  Tarsus. 

There  remained  now  only  two  emperors,  Constantine 
and  Licinius,  the  one  at  Rome,  the  other  at  Nicomedia. 

4.   T/ie  Persecutioti  dozvn  to  the  Edict  of  Galerius. 

We  must  now  return  to  the  enactments  of  persecution. 
The  first  edict,  besides  the  degradations  and  disqualifica- 


16  THE  GREAT  PERSECUTION  [CH.  i. 

tions  which  it  pronounced  against  certain  classes  of 
Christians,  commanded  the  demolition  of  the  churches 
and  the  burning  of  the  sacred  books.  Such  are,  at  any 
rate,  the  proceedings  which  are  known  to  us  directly ;  but 
we  know  also  that  the  real  property  of  the  Christian 
communities  was  confiscated,  and  that,  ere  the  religious 
edifices  were  destroyed,  the  furniture  of  them  was  seized. 
These  operations  were  carried  out  according  to  regular 
forms  ;  in  certain  places,  authentic  inventories  were  made  ; 
some  of  these  were  preserved  for  a  very  considerable 
period.  It  was  thus  that  the  Donatists  were  able,  in  411, 
to  produce  the  formal  records  of  the  seizure  of  the  churches 
of  Rome.^  These  have  been  lost  since  then ;  but  we  are 
still  able  to  read  those  which  were  drawn  up  at  Cirta  in 
Numidia.  More  summary  accounts  remain  to  us  with 
regard  to  the  application  of  the  edict  in  other  localities, 
in  Africa  and  elsewhere.  It  would  have  been  very  difficult 
to  resist  the  seizure  of  the  Church  properties.  But  at 
least  the  clergy  did  everything  in  their  power  to  save  the 
furniture,  and  especially  to  save  the  Holy  Scriptures. 
Some  women  of  Thessalonica  fled  to  the  mountains  with 
a  quantity  of  books  and  papers.-  The  Bishop  of  Carthage, 
Mensurius,  had  succeeded  in  concealing  the  sacred  books ; 
in  their  place,  he  left  in  one  of  his  churches  a  collection  of 
heretical  books,  which  were  seized  and  destroyed  by  the 
unheeding  police.  The  officials,  indeed,  were  not  always 
very  observant.  Some  decurions  of  Carthage,  having 
obtained  knowledge  of  Mensurius'  deception,  denounced 
him  to  the  proconsul :  the  latter  took  no  notice  of  their 
disclosures.  If  this  was  the  case  in  the  large  towns,  we 
can  imagine  what  would  happen  in  the  smaller  localities. 
There  were  places  where  the  Christians  were  in  bad  repute, 
and  where  the  municipal  government  was  in  the  hands  of 
their  adversaries  ;   but  in  other  places  they  had  to  deal 

^  Augustine,  Breviculus  Collationis  cum  DonatisHs,  34-36.  Several 
members  of  the  clergy,  among  others  a  deacon  Strato,  are  there 
mentioned  as  giving  up  to  the  magistrates  the  ecclesiastical  furniture  ; 
the  prefect  speaks  of  them  as  hortatores  vanissimae  supersiiiionis. 

2  The  Passion  of  SS.  Agape,  Chionia,  and  Irene  (April  i) — an 
important  document. 


p.  21]  THE  SACRED  BOOKS  17 

with  magistrates  who  were  Christians  themselves,  or  who, 
at  least,  were  sympathetic.  Ways  out  of  the  difficulty 
were  often  fouhd.  As  in  Carthage,  other  books  were 
seized  in  the  church  instead  of  those  of  the  Bible,^  and  if 
the  search  was  extended  even  to  the  bishop's  house,  there 
were  still  means  of  evading  it.  Sometimes,  instead  of 
entirely  destroying  the  churches,  the  police  contented 
themselves  with  burning  the  doors.  Moreover,  the  bishops 
and  clergy  often  showed  themselves  accommodating,  and 
gave  up  their  holy  books,  thinking,  doubtless,  that  it  would 
be  easy  later  on  to  obtain  new  copies.  But  this  com- 
plaisance was  not  accepted  by  general  opinion,  especially, 
as  can  readily  be  understood,  when  the  persecution  was 
over,  and  when  one  could  be  unyielding  without  risk.  It 
was  then  that  the  heroism  of  certain  bishops  was 
remembered,  e.g.,  of  Bishop  Felix  of  Thibiuca,  who  had 
paid  with  his  head  for  his  refusal  to  give  up  the  Scriptures.- 
Miracles  also,  were  reported,  like  that  which  occurred  at 
Abitina,  where,  as  the  sacred  books,  which  had  been  given 
up  by  the  Bishop  Fundanus,  were  thrown  into  the  fire,  a 
terrible  storm  burst  over  the  flames  and  inundated  the 
whole  country. 

In  those  provinces  which  were  governed  by  the  Caesar 
Constantius,  the  destruction  did  not  extend  beyond  the 
edifices  themselves.  The  churches  were  seized  and 
destroyed;  but  the  same  treatment  was  not  enforced  in 
regard  to  the  Scriptures. 

If  destruction  thus  befell  the  churches  in  which  the 
Christians  assembled  under  the  eye  of  the  authorities, 
there  was,  of  course,  far  more  reason  for  forbidding 
clandestine  meetings.  This  was  a  necessary  consequence 
of  the  first  edict,  and  we  are  justified  in  believing  that  such 

'  At  Aptonga  (for  the  orthography  of  the  name  of  this  town,  see 
the  texts  collected  in  the  Latin  Thesaurus),  some  epistolae  salutato- 
riae  (?)  were  seized  in  this  way  ;  at  Calaiiia,  some  books  on  medicine  ; 
at  Aquae  Tibilitanae,  papers  of  some  sort. 

^  The  Passion  of  this  Saint,  authentic  on  the  whole,  was  provided, 
later  on,  with  additions,  which  transferred  its  denouement  to  Italy. 
See  Analecta  Bollandiana,  vol.  xvi.,  p.  25. 

II  B 


18  THE  GREAT  PERSECUTION  [ch.  i. 

a  prohibition  was  expressly  formulated  in  it.  This  follows 
also  from  an  African  document,  in  which  figure  some  fifty 
Christians  of  the  little  town  of  Abitina,  who  are  accused  of 
having  met  for  service  ("collect")  under  the  presidency 
of  a  priest  called  Saturninus.  The  second  edict,  which 
ordered  the  imprisonment  of  the  clergy,  was  aimed 
indirectly  at  the  meetings  for  worship;  for  how  could 
they  be  held  without  religious  leaders? 

Up  to  this  time,  for  those  who  obeyed  the  edicts,  who 
accepted  their  legal  disqualifications,  who  allowed  their 
Scriptures  to  be  burnt  and  their  churches  to  be  seized, 
who  abstained  from  taking  part  in  the  assemblies  for 
worship  henceforth  forbidden,  there  was  still  some  measure 
of  safety.  In  Nicomedia,  it  is  true,  recourse  was  had  at 
once  to  the  most  extreme  measures ;  but  that  was  on 
account  of  special  circumstances.  The  more  sanguinary 
form  of  persecution  had  not  yet  attacked  the  simple 
profession  of  Christianity.  It  was  different  when  the 
government  renewed,  for  the  clergy  first  and  then  for  all 
the  faithful,  the  obligation  of  taking  part  in  the  ceremonies 
of  the  official  form  of  worship ;  when  they  no  longer 
confined  themselves  to  proscribing,  but  endeavoured  to 
convert. 

At  this  stage  the  same  state  of  things  was  repeated  as 
had  been  already  experienced  in  previous  persecutions. 
Excited  enthusiasts  rushed  to  martyrdom,  denounced  them- 
selves, made  an  uproar  before  the  tribunals,  and  insulted 
the  police.  Wise  and  strong  characters  waited  quietly 
until  they  were  arrested,  and  then  met  the  commands  of 
authority  with  a  calm  and  persevering  resistance,  which, 
in  many  cases,  triumphed  over  imprisonment  and  torture, 
and  was  maintained  unto  death.  There  were  also  many 
apostates,  most  of  them  in  a  great  hurry  to  do  whatever 
they  were  told  to  do,  in  order  to  escape  from  danger ; 
others  resisting  at  first,  and  then  weakening,  overcome  by 
the  horror  of  the  dungeons  and  the  anguish  of  the 
torture. 

Many  fled,  or  hid  themselves,  at  the  sacrifice  of  all 
their  possessions.     There  was  a  great  difference  between 


p.  23]       ATTITUDE  OF  THE  AUTHORITIES  19 

various  kinds  of  Christians.  We  can  study  them  in  the 
penitential  letter  of  Bishop  Peter  of  Alexandria,  written 
in  306,  in  the  canons  of  the  Council  of  Ancyra  (314), 
in  the  acounts  given  by  Eusebius,  and  in  certain 
fragments  of  hagiography.  Many  deceived  the  police, 
sent  their  slaves  or  their  pagan  friends  to  sacrifice  in 
their  stead,  and  thus  obtained  their  certificate  of  sacrifice. 
Others  followed  a  simpler  method  still,  and  bought 
this  certificate,  if  they  could  find  anyone  disposed  to 
sell  it  to  them.  Among  the  stout  hearted  there  were 
some  who  could  not  get  their  confession  of  faith  accepted. 
Some  of  the  magistrates  cared  far  less  for  executions 
than  for  apostasies.  There  were  even  some  who,  when 
the  term  of  their  office  had  expired,  boasted  of  not  having 
put  a  single  Christian  to  death. ^  In  the  matter  of  the 
pagan  actions  required,  the  authorities  were  very  easily 
satisfied ;  sometimes  they  registered  people  against  their 
will  as  having  complied  with  the  law.  Sometimes  it 
happened  that  inconsiderate  friends,  Christians  or  pagans, 
absolutely  determined  to  save  from  death  a  believer  whom 
they  knew  to  be  resolute,  dragged  him  to  the  altars, 
with  his  hands  and  feet  bound,  gagged  him  to  stop  him 
from  crying  out,  and  forced  him,  even  at  the  cost  of 
burning  his  hands  if  necessary,  to  throw  a  few  grains 
of  incense  upon  the  sacred  fire. 

Lactantius  complains,^  and  with  reason,  of  other 
judges,  more  to  be  feared  on  account  of  their  pretended 
clemency,  who  did  not  wish  to  kill  their  victims,  but 
invented  tortures  so  exquisite  that  they  often  overcame 
the  most  intrepid  resistance.  He  prefers  those  judges 
who  were  openly  cruel,  either  from  natural  ferocity,  or 
that  they  might  stand  well  with  the  superior  authorities. 
There  were  some  of  them  who  did  not  hesitate  to  go 
beyond  their  instructions,  like  the  judge  in  a  little  town 
of  Phrygia,  the  inhabitants  of  which  were  all  Christians, 
who  set  fire  to  the  church  in  which  the  whole  population 
was  assembled,  and  burnt  it  to  the  ground  with  those  in 

1  Lactantius,  Instititiioncs^  v.  ir.  -  Loc.  cit. 


20  THE  GREAT  PERSECUTION  [ch.  i. 

it,  including  the  town  council  and  the  magistrates  of  the 
place.^ 

The  change  of  emperors,  brought  about  by  the  abdica- 
tion of  Diocletian  and  Maximian,  had  the  effect  of  extend- 
ing, in  the  West,  the  field  of  action  of  Constantius  Chlorus. 
Spain,  annexed  to  his  immediate  jurisdiction,  shared  from 
that  time  in  the  relative  peace  which  Christians  had 
hitherto  enjoyed  in  Gaul  and  in  Britain.  His  lieutenant 
Severus  does  not  seem  to  have  been  distinguished  in 
Italy  and  Africa  by  a  special  zeal  for  the  edicts  of  persecu- 
tion. After  the  death  of  Constantius,  Constantine  showed 
himself  even  more  favourable  to  the  Christians  than  his 
father  had  been  ^ ;  Maxentius  also  was  tolerant.  We  may 
say,  then,  that  rigorous  persecution  lasted  scarcely  more 
than  two  years  (303-305)  in  the  western  provinces.  It 
was  quite  otherwise  in  Illyricum,  in  Thrace,^  Asia-Minor, 
and  the  Orient,  where  nothing  was  opposed  to  the  will 
of  Galerius  and  of  Maximin,  his  creature.  In  these  men 
natural  ferocity  was  at  the  service  of  a  kind  of  religious 
conviction :  Galerius  was  devout,  Maximin  a  fanatic. 
The  latter  combined  an  unbridled,  brutal,  and  despotic 
licentiousness  with  an  extraordinary  zeal  for  the  worship 
of  the  gods.  At  the  beginning  of  his  reign,  as  the 
persecution    seemed   to   him  to    have    somewhat  abated, 

1  Lactantius,  loc.  cit.;  cf.  Eusebius,  H.  E.  viii.  11.  Eusebius  says 
that  the  town  itself  (ttoX^x"'?'')  was  burnt,  with  the  curator^  the 
duumvir,  and  the  other  magistrates  ;  Lactantius  speaks  only  of  the 
church,  but  he  also  relates  that  the  whole  population  perished : 
universuin  populum  cum  ipso  pariter  conventiculo  concremavit, 

2  Suscepto  imperio  Constantimis  aug.  nihil  egit  prius  quavi 
chrisiiaTWs  cultui  ac  Deo  suo  redderet. — Lactantius,  De  mort. 
persec.  24. 

3  With  regard  to  the  victims  of  the  persecution  in  the  dominions  of 
Galerius  we  possess  several  important  and  trustworthy  traditions, 
contained  in  documents  sufficiently  near  the  date  of  the  events  them- 
selves. They  allow  us  to  determine  the  current  application  of  the 
edicts,  but  they  cannot  be  used  to  define  the  special  action  of  the 
prince  who  presided  over  their  execution  in  these  countries.  I  am 
speaking  here  of  the  accounts  relating  to  St  Philip  of  Heraclea, 
with  the  priest  Severus  and  the  deacon  Hermes  (October  22)  ; 
to    the   three   holy   women   of   Thessalonica,   Agape,   Chionia,  and 


p.  26]  MITIGATION  OF  PENALTIES  21 

he   took   care   to   revive    it   at  once,  and  imposed   afresh 
the  obligation  to  sacrifice.^ 

The  police,  armed  with  lists  of  names,  went  from 
street  to  street  calling  upon  the  inhabitants  to  appear, 
and  forcing  everyone,  even  women  and  children,  to  repair 
to  the  temple,  and  there  perform  the  prescribed  ceremonies. 
However,  after  the  lapse  of  a  certain  time,  dating  from 
the  year  307,  a  more  lenient  state  of  things  was  introduced. 
The  penalty  of  death,  in  ordinary  cases,  was  replaced  by 
that  of  hard  labour  in  the  mines,  with  this  aggravation, 
that  the  confessors  were  previously  deprived  of  the  sight 
of  the  right  eye,  and  maimed  in  the  left  leg  by  cauterizing 
the  tendon.  A  little  later,  in  308,  after  a  short  respite, 
the  provincial  and  municipal  authorities  were  again  set 
to  work.  The  Caesar  ordered  the  old  temples  to  be 
rebuilt  everywhere,  and  everyone,  even  the  little 
children,  was  obliged  to  take  part  in  the  sacrifices ;  the 
wine  of  the  libations  was  to  be  poured  over  the  victuals 
in  the  market ;  and  at  the  doors  of  the  public  baths 
altars  were  erected  upon  which  all  those  who  entered 
were  compelled  to  throw  incense.  There  were  still  many 
evil  days  to  come  and  go. 

Irene  (April  i)  ;  to  the  martyrs  of  Dorostorum,  Pasicrates, 
Valention  (May  25),  Marcian,  Nicander  (June  17),  Julius  (May  27), 
Hesychius  (June  15);  to  the  priest  Montanus  of  Singidunum 
(March  26) ;  to  the  Bishop  of  Sirmium,  Irenseus  (April  6)  ;  to 
the  hermit  Syneros,  belonging  to  the  same  town  (February  22)  ; 
to  Pollio,  chief  of  the  lectors  of  Cibales  (April  28) ;  to  the 
Bishop  of  Siscia,  Quirinus  (June  5  ;  cf.  Jerome,  Chrofticon,  a.  Abr. 
2324)  ;  to  the  Bishop  of  Poetovio,  Victorinus  (November  2  ;  cf. 
Jerome,  De  viris  illusiribus,  74) ;  to  St  Florian,  of  Lauriacum 
in  Noricum  (May  4),  etc.  This  enumeration  must  not  be  taken 
as  exhaustive  ;  I  have  only  selected  some  names  among  those  of  the 
martyrs  of  these  countries  which  can  be  safely  referred  to  the 
persecution  of  Diocletian  rather  than  to  any  other.  The  Hieronymian 
Martyrology  contains  many  other  names  under  the  heading  of 
the  Danubian  provinces,  especially  of  the  Lower  Danube,  from 
Sirmium  onwards  ;  it  is  very  probable  that  the  greater  part  of  these 
were  victims  of  the  last  persecution  rather  than  of  the  preceding 
ones. 

^  Eusebius,  Martyr.  Pal.  iv.  8.  If  we  were  to  believe  Maximin 
himself  (Eusebius,  H.  E.  ix.  9,  13),  he  was  never  a  persecutor. 


22  THE  GREAT  PERSECUTION  [ch.  i. 

However,   the    first   author    of    the    persecution   was 
already  struggling  with  the   terrible    malady   which   was 
to  overcome  his  ferocity.     It  began  almost  with  the  open- 
ing of  the  year  310;  and  for   some  eighteen  months  the 
wretched     Galerius     fought     against     it,    wearying     his 
physicians   with    his    complaints,  and   the    gods  with   his 
fruitless  supplications.     At  last  there  came  to  him  an  idea 
— surely  of  all  the  strangest — of  interesting  in  his  health 
the  Christians,  whom  for  years  he  had  hunted  down,  and 
the   God  whose  worship   he   had   sworn   to   exterminate. 
From     Sardica,    no     doubt,    where    he    then    was    with 
Licinius,    a     proclamation    was    sent    through     all     the 
provinces    in    the    name    of    the    four    sovereigns.^       It 
declared   that   the   emperors,  with   the  general    intention 
of  reform,  had   wished    to  bring   back   the  Christians  to 
the    religious    institutions    of   their   ancestors,^   but    that 
they  had  not  been  able  to  succeed,  the  Christians  having 
persisted,  in    spite   of  the  severities   of   which   they  had 
been  the  victims,  in  obeying  the    laws   which   they  had 
made   for   themselves.     Under   these   conditions,  as  they 
would   not   honour   the   gods    of    the   empire,  and   since 
they   could    not    practise   their   own    form    of  religion,  it 
was  necessary  to  make  provision  by  indulgence  for  their 
situation.     In   consequence,  they   were   allowed    to  exist 
once    more,    and    to    reconstitute    their    assemblies,    on 
condition,   however,   that    they   did    nothing   contrary   to 
discipline.^     The  magistrates  were  informed  that  another 
imperial    letter   would   explain   to   them  what  they  were 
to   do.     "  In    return    for   our   indulgence,"  the  edict  con- 

^  Lactantius  {De  inorL  perscc.  34)  has  preserved  the  original  text, 
but  without  the  title  ;  this  is  only  known  to  us  through  the  version 
of  Eusebius  {H.  E.  viii.  17).  It  only  mentions  Galerius,  Constantine, 
and  Licinius ;  the  name  of  Maximin  is  omitted,  either  because 
his  memory  was  officially  abolished,  or  from  the  fault  of  the  copyists. 

-  These  recitals  have  a  singular  resemblance  to  those  of  the  edict 
with  regard  to  the  Manicheans. 

3  Ut  denuo  sint  christiani  et  conventicula  sua  componatit,  iia  ut 
ne  quid  contra  disciplinam  agant.  We  must  observe  that  the  term 
conventiculum  signifies,  like  the  word  ecclesia,  both  the  assembly 
itself  and  the  place  where  it  is  held. 


p.  27-8]  RESULTS  OF  THE  EDICT  23 

eluded,  "  the  Christians  are  to  pray  to  their  God  for 
our  health,  for  the  State,  and  for  themselves,  that  the 
commonwealth  may  enjoy  perfect  prosperity,  and  that 
they  may  be  enabled  to  live  at  home  in  security." 

What  a  change !  The  emperor  and  the  empire 
recommended  to  the  prayers  of  the  Christians,  and  this 
by  the  very  man  who  was  responsible  for  all  the  calamities 
which  they  had  endured  for  eight  years ! 

5.   The  Persecution  of  Maxhnin. 

The  edict  was  published  at  Nicomedia^  and  in  all  the 
provinces  belonging  to  Galerius,  Licinius,  and  Constantine. 
In  the  empire  of  Constantine  it  was  really  only  an  official 
consecration  of  a  liberty  already  re-established  as  a  matter 
of  fact.     Maxentius  restored  to  the  bishops  the  places  of 
worship  which  had  hitherto  remained  in  the  hands  of  the 
treasury.      Maximin  showed  himself  less  prompt.     He  did 
not  publish   the  edict ;    but,  by  his  orders,  his  praetorian 
prefect,  Sabinus,  communicated  it  to  the  governors  of  the 
provinces,  commanding  them  to  let  the  municipal  magis- 
trates know  that  the  emperors  had  given  up  the  idea  of 
converting  the  Christians  to  the  State  religion,  and  that 
they  were  no  longer  to  be  punished  for  their  resistance. 
This  was  sufficient  in  the  eastern  provinces,  as  in  Asia- 
Minor  ;    the   gaols   were   opened ;  the   mines   yielded    up 
their   prisoners ;    the  Christians  who  had  disguised  their 
religion,  took    courage   and    showed    themselves   as   they 
were.      The   confessors  were  welcomed  with   enthusiasm, 
the  penitent  apostates   were  received    back    to   the    fold. 
Upon  the  high  roads  resounded  the  joyous  canticles  of  the 
liberated  prisoners  and  the  exiles  returning  to  their  homes. 
The  religious  assemblies,  after  an  interval  of  eight  years, 
were  held  again  as  of  old.     The  Christians  were  specially 
attached  to  those  which  took  place  in  the  cemeteries,  over 
the  graves  of  the  martyrs. 

But  these  joys  of  religious    peace   were    not   of  long 

^  The  publication  of  the  edict  at  Nicomedia  took  place  on  April 
30,  3"- 


24  THE  GREAT  PERSECUTION  [ch.  l. 

duration.  No  sooner  was  Galerius  dead  than  Maximin 
transported  to  Nicomedia  the  seat  of  his  tyranny  and  the 
scandal  of  his  debaucheries,  and  along  with  them  his 
fanatical  zeal  for  the  service  of  the  gods.  In  the  preced- 
ing years,  he  had  caused  all  their  temples  in  the  Orient  to 
be  restored;  now  he  reorganized  the  priestly  colleges. 
Taking  a  hint  from  the  Christian  hierarchy,  he  established 
in  each  city  a  chief  priest,  and  in  each  province  a  high 
priest,  giving  them  authority  over  their  colleagues,  and 
loading  them  with  honours  and  dignities.  These  pagan 
bishops  and  archbishops^  were  designated,  of  course,  to 
take  care  that  the  gods  should  have  no  cause  to  complain 
of  the  liberty  granted  to  the  Christians.  Spurious  Acts  of 
Pilate  were  fabricated,  filled  with  blasphemies  against 
Christ.  An  official  having  procured,  by  infamous  means, 
pretended  revelations  with  regard  to  the  morals  of 
Christians  and  the  horrors  of  their  assemblies,  the  greatest 
publicity  was  given  to  all  these  documents ;  they  were 
placarded  in  all  the  cities  and  villages,  and  were  imposed 
as  text-books  in  the  elementary  schools.'^ 

The  curator  oi  Antioch,  a  certain  Theotecnus,  conceived 
the  idea  of  procuring  an  oracle  against  the  Christians,  by 
means  of  the  god  Zeus  Philios,  whose  worship  he  had 
restored.  The  god  demanded  that  the  impious  persons 
should  be  driven  from  the  city  and  its  surrounding  territory. 
This  demand,  when  brought  to  the  knowledge  of  Maximin, 
pleased  him  greatly.  At  Nicomedia  a  similar  request  was 
presented  to  him  by  the  magistrates  of  the  town.  The 
people  of  Tyre  were  unwilling  to  be  behind-hand  ;  to  the 
petition  which  they  sent  him,  the  emperor  replied  by  a 
letter  full  of  unction  and  of  gratitude.  We  still  possess  it, 
for  Eusebius  procured  a  copy  of  it,  and  inserted  it  in  Greek 
in  his  History? 

^  This  organization  had  nothing  to  do  with  that  of  the  cult  of 
Rome  and  of  Augustus.  In  the  latter,  the  municipal  priest  of  Rome 
and  Augustus  had  no  authority  over  his  colleagues  of  the  other  cults, 
any  more  than  he  was  himself  under  the  authority  of  the  provincial 
priest.  Here,  we  are  dealing  with  a  general  grouping  of  all  the 
priestly  colleges  :  such  an  attempt  had  never  before  been  made. 

-'  Eusebius,  H,  E.  ix.  5.  ■^  Ibid.  ix.  7. 


p.  30-1]     PROGRESS  OF  THE  PERSECUTION  25 

The  movement  spread  :  the  municipal  councils  and  the 
provincial  assemblies  hastened  to  follow  an  example  thus 
encouraged  in  high  quarters.  The  officials,  besides,  were 
on  the  spot,  to  stir  up  zeal.  We  still  possess,^  in  part  at 
least,  the  text,  inscribed  on  stone,  of  the  petition  addressed 
to  Maximin  by  the  provincial  assembly  of  Lycia  and 
Pamphylia,  and  also  of  the  emperor's  reply.  We  see  in 
the  reply,  as  in  the  letter  to  the  people  of  Tyre,  that  the 
petitioners  were  regarded  with  high  approval,  and  that  the 
greatest  rewards  were  promised  to  them. 

Thus  strengthened  by  imperial  approbation,  the 
municipal  magistrates  could  give  themselves  up  with  an 
easy  mind  to  hunting  the  Christians.  Soon  troops  of 
wretched  beings  were  to  be  found  wandering  upon  the 
public  roads  in  search  of  a  refuge.  Yet  still  the  edict  of 
toleration  had  not  been  officially  recalled.  The  magistrates 
confined  themselves  to  forbidding  meetings  in  the 
cemeteries,  and  the  rebuilding  of  churches.-  The  Govern- 
ment did  not  acknowledge  that  anyone  was  punished  for 
the  simple  fact  of  being  a  Christian.  Constantine,  more- 
over, intervened  by  means  of  letters,  and  set  himself  to 
restrain  the  frenzied  zeal  of  his  eastern  colleague.  But  in 
the  state  of  mind  in  which  Maximin  was,  we  can  well 
imagine  how  easily  he  found  pretexts  for  getting  rid  of 
the  troublesome  Christians.  It  was  in  this  way  that  the 
Bishop  of  Emesa,  Silvanus,  was  put  to  death,  being  thrown 
to  the  beasts  with  two  companions ;  Peter,  Bishop  of 
Alexandria,  was  beheaded,  without  even  the  pretence  of  a 
trial ;  and  several  Egyptian  bishops  were  treated  in  the 
same  fashion.  Lucian,  the  celebrated  priest  of  Antioch, 
who  had  retired  to  Nicomedia,  was  arrested  there,  and,  in 

*  Corpus  Inscripiiofiiim  Latinarum^  vol.  iii.  No.  12 132,  found  at 
Arycanda  in  Lycia.  The  petition  is  addressed,  according  to  the 
opening,  to  the  three  legitimate  emperors,  Maximin,  Constantine,  and 
Licinius.  Yet  the  name  of  Constantine  has  not  been  reproduced  on 
the  marble  :  the  place  for  it  is  left  blank. 

-  Upon  this  point,  the  instructions  of  Maximin  to  the  praetorian 
prefect,  Sabinus,  went  beyond  the  edict,  for  the  edict  allowed  the 
Christians  coinpotiere  convcnticula  sua. 


26  THE  GREAT  PERSECUTION  [ch.  i. 

spite  of  the  eloquent  speech  which  he  made  in  his  own 
defence,  was  executed  in  prison. 

These  are  examples  of  the  kind  of  treatment  to  which 
the  Churches  of  Asia-Minor,  of  the  Orient,  and  of  Egypt 
had  to  submit,  during  the  two  years  that  the  tyranny  of 
Maximin  lay  heavy  upon  them.  To  these  miseries  was 
added  also,  in  Syria  at  least,  the  scourge  of  famine  and 
that  of  contagious  disease.  Eusebius  has  left  us^  affecting 
details  on  this  subject.  The  Christians  around  him  dis- 
tinguished themselves  at  this  time  by  their  charity  to  the 
sick  and  starving,  without  any  distinction  of  religion,  as 
well  as  by  their  assiduous  care  in  burying  the  dead.  They 
thus  disarmed  the  hostility  of  many  of  their  enemies. 
During  this  time,  Maximin  attempted  to  interfere  in  the 
religious  affairs  of  the  Armenians,  who  were  friends  and 
allies  of  the  Empire,-  and  to  force  them  to  "  sacrifice  to 
idols."  The  Armenians  rose  in  revolt,  and  war  once  more 
drenched  the  eastern  frontiers  with  blood. 

But  the  days  of  Maximin  were  numbered.  At  the 
beginning  of  the  year  312,  he  heard  that  the  war  between 
Constantine  and  Maxentius,  a  war  foreseen  and  expected 
ever  since  the  death  of  Maximian,^  had  at  last  broken  out ; 
that  Constantine  was  in  Italy,  marching  from  one  success 
to  another ;  that  he  had  betrothed  his  sister  to  Licinius, 
and  concluded  an  alliance  with  him.  The  Nicomedian 
Emperor  then  understood  the  danger  which  threatened 
him.  He,  the  legitimate  prince,  consecrated  by  the  choice 
of  Galerius,  and  invested  with  the  imperial  insignia  by 
Diocletian,  entered  into  a  secret  treaty  with  the  "tyrant," 
against    whom    had    fulminated,   for    six    years,   all    the 

1  H.  E.  ix.  8. 

-  In  these  Armenians  (Eusebius,  H.  E.  ix.  8)  we  must  recognize, 
I  think,  the  inhabitants  of  the  five  satrapies  beyond  the  Tigris, 
annexed  to  the  empire  by  the  treaty  of  297  (Mommsen,  Romische 
Geschichte^  vol.  v.  p.  445).  They  had  not  been  reduced  to  provinces  ; 
they  remained  under  the  authority  of  their  national  chiefs.  These 
were  Christians,  on  account  of  the  change  of  religion  which  had  for 
some  time  been  in  process  in  the  kingdom  of  Armenia. 

•^  Constantine  had  pronounced  against  Maximian  the  damnatio 
memoriae  ;  on  the  contrary,  Maxentius  had  declared  him  divus. 


p.  33]  PANIC  OF  MAXIMIN  27 

thunders  of  the  Tetrarchy.  When  the  news  reached  him 
of  the  battle  of  the  Milvian  Bridge,  he  felt  that  it  was  he 
himself  who  was  defeated.  Constantine  had  found  in 
Rome  statues  of  Maximin  placed  side  by  side  with  those 
of  Maxentius,  and — a  more  serious  matter  still — he  found 
letters  which  confirmed  the  alliance  and  the  treason. 
However,  he  did  not  at  once  take  up  a  hostile  attitude,  but 
he  assumed  for  himself,  or  allowed  the  senate  to  give  him, 
the  first  place  in  the  imperial  triumvirate,  a  place  which 
had,  until  then,  been  accorded  to  Maximin,  It  was  an 
evil  omen  for  the  latter.  He  was  officially  informed  of  the 
defeat  of  ]\Iaxentius,  and  at  the  same  time  he  was  invited 
to  leave  the  Christians  in  peace.  He  made  a  pretence  of 
compliance.  In  a  new  letter,^  addressed  to  his  praetorian 
prefect,  Sabinus,  he  reminded  him  that  ever  since  his 
accession  to  power  (305)  he  had  endeavoured  to  mitigate, 
in  the  provinces  of  the  Orient  subject  to  his  authority,  the 
severities  enjoined  by  Diocletian  and  Maximian  against 
the  followers  of  the  Christian  religion ;  that,  when  he 
became  emperor  at  Nicomedia  (in  311),  he  had,  it  was  true, 
received  favourably  the  requests  presented  to  him  against 
the  Christians  by  the  inhabitants  of  that  town  and  of  many 
others  ;  that,  nevertheless,  he  had  not  intended  that  anyone 
should  be  ill-treated  on  account  of  his  religion,  and  that  it 
was  necessary  to  write  to  that  effect  to  the  officials  of  the 
provinces. 

This  document  was  lacking  in  precision.  The 
Christians  mistrusted  it ;  they  abstained  from  holding 
assemblies  in  public,  and  from  rebuilding  their  churches. 
The  new  edict  did  not  specify  that  they  were  authorized 
to  do  so.  The  whole  thing  did  not  amount  to  more  than 
a  purely  formal  satisfaction  given  to  Constantine.-  In 
reality,  things  remained  in  the  condition  in  which  Maximin 
had  maintained  them  for  the  past  two  years. 

^  Eusebius,  H.  E.  ix.  9. 

^  So  far  as  Constantine  was  concerned,  Maximin  had  not  ceased 
to  be  a  regular  emperor.  On  April  15,  313,  fifteen  days  before  the 
battle  of  Adrianople,  a  letter  from  the  proconsul  of  Africa  to 
Constantine  still  bears  at  the  head  the  names  of  the  three  emperors 
(St  Augustine,  Ep.  88). 


28  THE  GREAT  PERSECUTION  [ch.  i. 

6.   The  End  of  the  Evil  Days. 

This  was  the  position  in  the  spring  of  313,  when 
Maximin  opened  his  campaign  against  Licinius.  Being 
defeated  on  April  30,  near  Adrianople,  he  recrossed 
the  Bosphorus,  disguised  in  borrowed  clothes,  passed 
through  Nicomedia,  and  did  not  stop  until  he  reached 
the  Taurus.  There,  in  Cilicia,  he  was  again  in  his 
former  empire.  But  Licinius  was  following  him  closely ; 
he  forced  the  passes,  and  at  last  Maximin,  in  despair, 
poisoned  himself  at  Tarsus.  He  died  in  frightful 
suffering.  Before  killing  himself,  he  had  thought  for  a 
moment  that  resistance  was  still  possible,  and,  to  conciliate 
the  Christians  whom  he  had  so  eagerly  persecuted,  he 
had  an  idea  of  issuing  a  fresh  edict,  giving  them  full  and 
complete  toleration.^  But  with  him  cruelty  never  lost  its 
sway.  At  the  same  time  as  he  granted  liberty  to  the 
Christians,  he  ordered  the  execution  of  a  number  of  pagan 
priests  and  diviners,  whose  oracles  had  induced  him  to 
engage  in  this  disastrous  war. 

His  edict,  as  regards  its  practical  part,  was  absolutely 
similar  to  that  which  Licinius  had  hastened  to  publish  at 
Nicomedia,-  of  which  the  following  is  the  text : — 

"  Inasmuch  as  we  have  long  considered  that  liberty 
of  religion  could  not  be  refused,  and  that  everyone 
ought  to  have  granted  to  him,  according  to  his  opinions 
and  wishes,  power  to  act  as  he  pleases  in  the  practice  of 
divine  things,  we  had  already  given  orders  that  every 
person,  including  the  Christians,-^  may  remain  faithful 
to  his  religious  principles.^     But  since  different  provisions 

1  Eusebius,  H.  E.  ix.  10. 

-  The  Latin  text  is  in  Lactantius,  De  inort.  persec.  48,  but  without 
the  prologue ;  a  complete  translation  in  Greek  is  in  Eusebius, 
H.  E.  X.  5. 

^   Greek,  eKaarov  KeKeXevKiifiev,  rots  re  xP'-'^Tiavoh,  rrjs  alp^aews  /cat    ttjs 

dpri<TK€ias  TTJS  eavrQv  t7}v  tt'octiv  (pvXdTTeiv.     Unless  a  few  words  are  lost, 
the  original  Latin  ought  to  run,  as  nearly  as  possible,  thus  :  unum- 
quetnque  iusseravius,  non  exxeptis  christianis,  scntentiae  et  religionis 
propriae  fiduciam  servare. 
^  The  edict  of  April  311. 


p.  35-6]       LIBERTY  FOR  THE  CHRISTIANS  29 

have  been  added  to  the  text  by  which  this  concession 
was  granted  to  them,^  it  seems  speedily  to  have  come  to 
pass  that  some  of  them  have  not  been  able  to  profit  by  it. 

'*  While  '^  we  were  happily  together  at  Milan,  namely,  I, 
Constantine    Augustus,   and    I,    Licinius    Augustus,   and 
while  we  were  consulting    together  upon  all  that  relates 
to  the  public  welfare  and  safety,  amongst  the  things  which 
appeared  to  us  useful  to  the  greatest  number,  we  decided 
that  the  first  place  must  be  given  to  that  which  concerns 
the  worship  of  the  Divinity,  by  granting  to  the  Christians 
and  to  everyone  else  perfect  liberty  to  follow  the  religion 
which  he  prefers,  in  order  that  whatsoever  Divinity  there 
be  in  the  celestial  mansions  may  be  favourable  and  pro- 
pitious to  us,^  and  to  all  those  placed  under  our  authority. 
Wherefore   we   have  decided,  being  influenced  thereunto 
by  wise  and  just  reasons,  to    refuse   liberty  to  no  man, 
whether  he  be  attached   to  the  religious  observances  of 
the   Christians,  or  to  any  other  religion  which  he  finds 
suitable  to  him ;    in   order   that   the   Supreme    Divinity, 
whom  we  serve  in  all  freedom,  may  grant  us,  in  all  things, 
his   favour  and  benevolence.     Therefore,  be  it  known  to 
Your  Devotedness,*  it  has  pleased  us  to  remove  absolutely 
all    the    restrictions  contained    in   the    letters   previously 
addressed    to    your    offices  regarding   the    Christians,   as 
odious  restrictions,  incompatible  with  our  clemency ;  and 
to  allow  every  person  who  wishes  to  observe  the  Christian 
religion  the  pure  and  simple   liberty  to   do   so,  without 
being   troubled    or    molested.      We   have   thought   fit   to 
dignify  this  expressly  to  Your  Solicitude,  that  you  may 
have  full  knowledge  of  our  intention  to  give  the  Christians 
perfect  and  entire  liberty  to  practise  their  religion. 

"  In  making  this  concession  to  them,  we  wish  also, 
and  Your  Devotedness  will  understand  this,  that  others 
too  should  have  the  same  entire  liberty  with  regard  to 
their  religions  and  observances,  as  the  peace  of  our  own 
times   requires,   in    order   that   everyone   may   have   free 

'  The  additional  and  restrictive  provisions  of  Maximin. 

-  Here  begins  Lactantius'  text.  ^  Placatum  ac  propitium. 

'  The  document  is  addressed  to  an  official. 


30  THE  GREAT  PERSECUTION  [ch.  i. 

licence  to  adore  whatever  he  pleases.  We  have  made  this 
rule,  in  order  that  no  dignity  and  no  religion  should  be 
diminished. 

"  As  concerns  the  Christians,  we  have  decided  in 
addition,  that  the  places  in  which  they  were  accustomed 
to  assemble,  and  regarding  which  letters  addressed  to  your 
offices  have  previously  given  instructions,  if  some  of  them 
have  been  bought  by  our  imperial  treasury  or  by  anyone 
else,  are  to  be  restored  to  the  Christians  gratis  and 
without  asking  any  price  for  them,  without  seeking  any 
pretexts  or  raising  any  doubtful  questions ;  and  that 
those  to  whom  such  places  may  have  been  given,  must 
also  restore  them  to  the  Christians,  with  as  little  delay  as 
possible.  These  buyers,  however,  and  those  who  have 
received  such  places  as  a  gift,  may  address  themselves  to 
our  benevolence,  to  obtain  some  compensation,  for  which 
our  clemency  will  provide.  And  since  the  Christians 
possessed,  not  only  their  places  of  assembly,  but  others 
also,  belonging  to  their  corporate  bodies,  that  is  to  their 
churches,  and  not  to  private  individuals,  these  properties 
also  you  will  cause  all  to  be  restored,  on  the  conditions 
expressed  above,  without  ambiguity  or  dispute,  to  these 
same  Christians,  that  is  to  say  to  their  corporations  and 
conventicles,  subject  to  the  reservation  already  announced 
that  those  who  thus  restore  them,  without  exacting  any 
price  for  them,  may  rely  upon  an  indemnity  from  our 
benevolence.  In  all  this,  you  are  to  lend  to  the  said  body 
of  Christians  the  most  efficient  assistance,  so  that  our 
orders  may  be  executed  with  the  briefest  possible  delay, 
and  that  thus,  through  our  clemency,  provision  may  be 
made  for  public  tranquillity.  Thus,  as  we  have  already 
said,  the  Divine  favour,  of  which  we  have  had  experience 
in  such  grave  conjunctures  of  affairs,  will  continue  to 
sustain  our  success,  for  the  public  weal. 

"  In  order  that  the  purport  of  this  decision  of  our 
benevolence  may  come  to  the  knowledge  of  all,  you  shall 
take  care  to  publish  this  edict  by  means  of  placards  posted 
up  everywhere,  and  also  give  notice  of  it  to  everyone,  that 
no  one  may  be  ignorant  thereof." 


p.  38]  LEGAL  RECOGNITION  31 

This  edict,  in  the  name  of  the  two  emperors,  Constantine 
and  Licinius,  but  emanating  immediately  from  Licinius, 
was  undoubtedly  addressed  to  the  praetorian  prefect  of 
the  Orient,  who  was  charged  with  the  duty  of  publishing 
it,  and  communicating  it  to  the  governors  of  provinces 
and  other  magistrates  competent  to  execute  it.  It 
represented,  first  of  all,  the  abolition,  by  Licinius,  of  all 
those  restrictions  by  which,  for  eighteen  months,  Maximin 
had  tried  to  impede  the  application  of  the  edict  of  tolera- 
tion ;  in  the  second  place,  it  represented  an  addition 
decided  upon  at  Milan,  between  Constantine  and  Licinius, 
which  addition  was  directed  to  two  points :  (i)  to  religious 
liberty  in  general,  which  it  declared  to  be  full,  entire,  and 
absolute  for  Christians  as  for  others,  for  others  as  for 
Christians ;  (2)  to  ecclesiastical  properties  apart  from  the 
buildings  used  for  purposes  of  worship  :  it  prescribed  the 
immediate  restitution  of  these,  whether  they  had  remained 
in  the  hands  of  the  imperial  treasury  or  had  been  disposed 
of,  either  by  sale  or  gift,  to  private  individuals. 

Following  upon  the  interview  at  Milan,  another  edict, 
earlier  than  this  one,  must  have  brought  these  liberal 
arrangements  to  the  knowledge  of  the  public  in  the  West, 
and  in  Illyricum  :  we  no  longer  possess  the  details  of  it, 
and  it  is  only  by  its  Eastern  adaptations  ^  that  we  are  able 
to  judge  of  it.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  thanks  to  these 
extensions  to  the  edict  of  Galerius,  the  Christians,  as 
individuals  and  as  a  body,  were  restored,  by  a  kind  of 
restitutio  in  integrum,  to  the  position  in  which  they  found 
themselves  before  the  persecution.  But  this  position  they 
had  at  that  time  only  enjoyed  by  a  tacit  toleration  :  the 
new  arrangements  gave  them  a  legal  title. 

7.   The  Effects  of  the  Persecution. 

At  last,  then,  religious  peace  reigned  ;  it  was  complete, 
without  reservations,  and  extended  to  the  whole  Empire. 

1  Eusebius  has  preserved  to  us  a  letter  addressed  by  the  emperors 
to  the  proconsul  of  Africa,  Anulinus,  relating  to  the  restitution  to  the 
churches  of  their  confiscated  properties  (//.  E.  x.  5,  "Eo-n^  6  rpdiroi). 


32  THE  GREAT  PERSECUTION  [ch.  i. 

The  Christians  breathed  again ;  the  Churches  were  re- 
organized in  the  full  light  of  day  ;  the  sacred  edifices  were 
rebuilt,  and  the  interrupted  meetings  were  resumed.  In 
this  re-awakening  to  life,  the  memory  of  the  dark  days 
was  soon  obliterated,  and  then  effaced  entirely.  It  would 
almost  have  been  lost  to  history,  if  the  indefatigable 
Eusebius  had  not  taken  care  to  record  some  details  of  it 
at  once.  And  even  he  did  not  think  it  expedient  to 
present  a  general  picture  of  the  persecution.  Leaving  to 
others^  the  task  of  relating  what  they  had  witnessed 
around  them,  he  confined  his  special  enquiries  to  his  own 
province  of  Palestine,  contenting  himself,  so  far  as  the 
other  provinces  were  concerned,  with  reporting  a  few 
names  and  indicating  a  few  general  features  of  the 
situation.  Unfortunately,  however,  the  "  others,"  upon 
whom  he  had  relied,  nowhere  took  up  the  pen,  and  it  is 
only  for  Eusebius'  own  province  that  we  possess  exact 
information. 

His  book,  The  Martyrs  of  Palestine,  written  in  the  year 
313,^  just  when  the  persecution  was  drawing  to  an  end, 
enumerates  forty-three  persons  condemned  to  death  and 
executed  by  order  of  the  governors  of  Palestine  during  the 
ten  years  303-313.  We  must  remark,  first  of  all,  that  this 
number  does  not  include  the  name  of  a  single  bishop, 
although  there  were,  at  that  time,  at  least  some  twenty  ^ 
episcopal  sees  in  the  province.  The  most  distinguished  of 
these  dignitaries,  Agapius,  Bishop  of  Caesarea,  passed 
through   the  whole   of  the  crises   unscathed.     Eusebius* 

'  H.  E.  viii.  13. 

^  There  are  two  recensions  of  this  book  :  one,  the  shorter  of  the 
two,  which  in  the  majority  of  the  manuscripts  is  attached  to  Book  VIII. 
of  the  Ecclesiastical  History  ;  the  other  and  longer  recension,  of  which 
the  Greek  text  has  only  been  preserved  partially,  or  in  an  abridged 
form.  There  is  a  Syriac  version  of  it,  in  a  very  full  form,  in  a  MS.  of 
the  year  41 1.  (W.  Cureton,  History  of  the  Martyrs  in  Palestine,  1861). 
Dr  Bruno  Violet  {Die  Palasiinischeti  Mcirtyrer  des  Eusebius,  in  the 
Texte  u.  Untersuchungen,  vol.  xiv.  1896)  has  given  a  German  version 
of  it,  making  use  of  earlier  texts  and  treatises.  It  should  be  completed 
by  Anal.  Boll.,  vol.  xvi.,  p.  113. 

^  Eighteen  Palestinian  bishops  were  present,  in  325,  at  the  Council 
of  Nicasa.  ^  H.  E.  vii.  32,  §  24. 


p.  40-1]        THE  MARTYRS  OF  PALESTINE  33 

praises  his  alms-giving  and  his  talent  for  administration, 
but  that  is  all.  Hermon,  Bishop  of  JElia,  also  came  safely 
through  all.  The  only  Palestinian  bishop  who  made  the 
supreme  sacrifice  at  that  time  was  a  Marcionite  bishop, 
Asclepios,  martyred  in  309.  With  regard  to  priests,  we 
hear  only  of  Pamphilus,  the  learned  and  celebrated 
disciple  of  Origen,  and  a  priest  of  Gaza,  called  Silvanus. 
Moreover,  the  last  named  was  only  sent  to  the  mines,  and, 
if  he  died  there,  it  was  not  by  sentence  of  the  governor 
of  Palestine.  Several  deacons,  exorcists,  and. readers^ 
represent  the  lower  ranks  of  the  clergy  rather  more 
largely. 

Nevertheless,  we  must  not  think  that  those  whose 
names  do  not  appear  among  the  victims,  properly  so- 
called,  remained  absolutely  untouched.  Eusebius,  who  is 
by  no  means  well  disposed  to  the  bishops  of  his  own 
country,  relates  -  that,  since  they  had  not  known  how  to 
lead  the  Lord's  sheep,  they  were  made  leaders  of 
camels,  or  set  to  look  after  post-horses.  These  details 
evidently  refer  to  persons  who  had  survived,  and  into 
whose  history  it  was  better  not  to  enquire.  Eusebius 
adds  that,  as  regards  the  sacred  vessels  of  the  churches, 
they  were  submitted  to  many  outrages  on  the  part  of  the 
officials  of  the  imperial  treasury. 

Another  observation  which  the  accounts  given  by 
Eusebius  suggest  to  us,  is  that,  in  many  cases,  the  persons 
executed  were  executed,  not  for  the  simple  refusal  to 
sacrifice,  but  for  having  complicated  their  refusal  by  words 
or  actions  calculated  to  aggravate  it,  for  instance,  by 
having  made  demonstrations  in  favour  of  those  condemned, 
or  assisting  the  confessors  with  too  much  zeal.  Enthusi- 
astic believers,  as  always  happens,  lost  no  opportunity  of 
distinguishing  themselves.  Procopius,  a  reader  at  Scytho- 
polis,  thought  it  wrong  that  there  should  be  four  emperors, 

^  Romanus,  rural  deacon  of  Caesarea,  who  was  martyred  at 
Antioch  ;  Valens,  deacon  of  ^lia  ;  Zacchseus,  deacon  of  Gadara  ; 
Romulus,  sub-deacon  of  Diospolis  ;  Alphseus,  lector  of  Caesarea  ; 
Procopius,  lector  of  Scythopolis. 

■^  Martyr.  Pal.  1 2. 

II  C 


34  THE  GREAT  PERSECUTION  [ch.  i. 

and  quoted  to  the  audience  a  verse  from  Homer,  in 
which  monarchy  was  commended.  Others  spoke,  in  this 
connection  of  Jesus  Christ  as  the  only  true  King.^  The 
governor,  Urbanus,  was  going  one  day  to  the  amphitheatre, 
where,  it  was  said,  a  Christian  was  to  be  thrown  to  the 
beasts  ;  he  met  a  group  of  six  young  men,  who  presented 
themselves  before  him  with  their  hands  bound,  declaring 
that  they  also  were  Christians,  and  ought  to  be  thrown 
into  the  arena.-  Eusebius  and  Pamphilus  had  received 
into  their  house  a  young  Lycian,  Apphianus  by  name,  a 
prize-winner  of  the  schools  of  Berytus,  and  so  fervent  a 
Christian  that  he  could  not  endure  to  live  with  his  parents, 
who  were  still  pagans.  Pamphilus  used  to  instruct  him  in 
the  Holy  Scriptures ;  but,  one  day,  he  heard  shouting  in 
the  street.  The  Christians  were  being  summoned  to  a 
pagan  ceremony.  Apphianus  could  no  longer  restrain 
himself,  made  his  escape  without  any  warning  to  his  hosts, 
rushed  to  the  temple,  where  the  governor  was,  sprang  upon 
him,  seized  his  hand,  and  tried  to  prevent  him  from  offering 
sacrifice  to  the  idols.^ 

Apphianus  had  a  brother,  ^desius,  a  Christian  like 
himself  and  a  disciple  of  Pamphilus,  a  youth  of  superior 
culture  and  an  ardent  ascetic.  He  had  been  several  times 
arrested,  and  was  at  last  condemned  to  the  mines  of 
Palestine;  he  escaped  from  them,  fled  to  Alexandria, 
and  lost  no  time  in  frequenting  the  audiences  of  the 
prefect.  This  official  was  a  certain  Hierocles,  a  great 
devourer  of  Christians.^  Appointed  to  the  government 
of  Lower  Egypt,  he  there  applied  his  principles  with  the 
greatest  severity,  ^desius  heard  him  condemn  some 
Christian  virgins  to  a  treatment  which  was  far  worse  to 
them  than  death,  and  which  was,  besides,  illegal.  This 
was  quite  enough.  Protesting  against  the  sentence,  he 
sprang  upon  the  tribunal,  gave  the  judge  two  resounding 
boxes  on  the  ears,  threw  him  on  the  ground,  and  trampled 
him  under-foot.^ 

1  Martyr.  Pal.  i.  -  Ibid.  3.  ^  /^/^_  4. 

^  Lactantius,  Institutiones,  v.  2  ;  De  mort.  pcrsec.  16. 
"  Martyr.  Pal.  5. 


p.  43]  THE  MINES  35 

A  virgin  of  Gaza,  threatened  with  the  same  shameful 
fate,  protested  against  the  tyrant  who  caused  himself  to  be 
represented  by  such  abominable  magistrates.  She  was 
immediately  put  to  the  torture.  In  indignation  a  poor 
woman  of  Caesarea,  Valentina  by  name,  caused  an  uproar 
and  overturned  the  altar.  The  two  women  were  burnt 
together.^  Three  Christians,  Antoninus,  Zebinas,  and 
Germanus,  imitated  the  exploit  of  Apphianus,  and 
assaulted  the  governor  during  a  religious  ceremony : 
they  were  beheaded.'- 

From  these  accounts  it  may  be  concluded,  I  think, 
that  the  governors  of  Palestine,  though  much  abused  by 
Eusebius,  must  not  be  regarded  as  having  displayed  any 
special  ferocity.  They  may  have  made  examples,  and 
severely  chastised  several  Christians,  who  were  in  too 
great  a  hurry  to  declare  themselves  as  such,  or  guilty  of 
having  infringed  some  special  prohibitions.  But  we  are 
not  told  of  any  of  those  wholesale  executions,  or  of  those 
refined  and  revolting  tortures  which  we  find  in  other 
provinces.^ 

After  the  year  307,  the  punishment  of  death  was 
generally  replaced  by  that  of  condemnation  to  the  mines. 
But,  by  way  of  compensation,  the  punishment  was  applied 
very  largely  to  considerable  bodies  of  persons  :  for  instance, 
to  a  whole  assembly  of  Christians,  who  were  surprised  by 
the  vigilant  police  of  Gaza.  The  confessors  were  sent  to 
the  copper-mines  at  Pha^no,  to  the  south  of  the  Dead  Sea. 
It  was  a  very  desolate  place.  Thither  also  were  sent,  in 
large  troops  of  a  hundred  or  a  hundred  and  thirty  persons 
at  a  time,  many  Egyptian  Christians,  for  whom  a  place 
could  no  longer  be  found  in  the  quarries  of  their  own  country. 
Phseno  ended  by  becoming  a  Christian  colony.  The  con- 
demned, apart  from  their  work,  enjoyed  there  a  certain 
amount  of  liberty;  they  assembled  themselves  together  in 
various   places,  transformed    into   churches.     Priests    and 

'  Martyr.  Pal.  8.  -  Ibid.  9. 

■'  We  may  notice  also,  that  in  addition  to  the  forty-three  martyrs 
mentioned  by  Eusebius,  there  were  about  ten  Egyptians,  who  were 
arrested  accidentally  at  Ascalon  or  at  Cicsarea. 


36  THE  GREAT  PERSECUTION  [ch.  i. 

bishops  were  to  be  found  amongst  them,  and  presided 
over  these  assemblies.  We  may  mention  among  them 
the  Egyptian  bishops,  Nilus,  Peleus,  and  Meletius  ;  and 
also  Silvanus,  a  veteran  of  the  army,  who  had  entered  the 
service  of  the  Church.  At  the  time  when  the  persecution 
broke  out,  he  was  exercising  his  priestly  functions  in  the 
neighbourhood  of  Gaza ;  he  was  a  past  confessor.  He 
was  ordained  bishop  at  Phaeno  itself.^  There  also 
officiated  the  Reader  John,  who  had  long  been  blind, 
and  who  knew  the  whole  Bible  by  heart,  and  used  to 
recite  it  without  a  book  in  the  meetings  of  the 
confessors.  These  meetings  were  not  always  peaceful 
ones :  even  in  prison  they  found  means  of  quarrelling 
with  one  another.  So  much  liberty  displeased  the 
governor,  Firmilian.  After  a  visit  paid  to  these  quarters, 
he  informed  Maximin  of  the  state  of  affairs,  and  by  the 
emperor's  command  the  colony  of  Phaeno  was  dispersed 
in  other  mines.  Several  executions  took  place  at  the 
same  time ;  Nilus  and  Peleus  were  burnt,  with  a  priest  and 
the  confessor  Patermouthios,  a  personage  highly  esteemed 
for  his  zeal.  This  execution  was  ordered  by  the  military 
commandant.  There  only  remained  thirty-nine  infirm 
persons,  incapable  of  real  work  ;  in  this  group  were  to  be 
found  the  Bishop  Silvanus  and  the  Reader  John.  They 
were  got  rid  of  by  cutting  off  their  heads. 

In  Egypt  the  persecution  was  far  more  severe,  especi- 
ally in  Upper  Egypt,  in  the  Thebaid.  Eusebius  visited 
these  regions  while  the  persecution  was  still  going  on. 
He  heard  of  wholesale  executions,  of  thirty,  sixty,  or 
even  a  hundred  martyrs  who  died  each  day,  either  by 
being  beheaded  or  burnt  alive ;  he  heard  of  abominable 
tortures  —  of  women  suspended,  naked,  by  one  foot 
only,  of  confessors  attached  by  their  legs  to  branches 
of  neighbouring  trees  which  were  forcibly  brought  close 
together :  then,  when  the  rope  was  cut,  the  branches 
flew  back  to  their  former  positions,  quartering  the  poor 
victims.     It  was  all  in  vain  ;  no  amount  of  torture  could 

^  This  was,  no  doubt,  one  of  the  irregular  ordinations  performed 
by  Meletius. 


p.  45-6]  EGYPTIAN  MARTYRS  37 

terrify  these  Egyptians,  always  severe  in  their  life, 
and  inspired  by  their  enthusiasm  and  their  resistance. 
The  more  executions  there  were,  the  more  eagerly  fresh 
victims  presented  themselves.  In  Lower  Egypt,  Peter, 
the  Bishop  of  Alexandria,  kept  himself  hidden,  but  with  a 
watchful  eye  over  his  flock  ;  several  of  his  priests,  Faustus, 
Dius,  and  Ammonius,  figured  among  the  victims.  The  first 
of  these  had  already  confessed  his  faith,  nearly  half  a 
century  before,  when  he  was  deacon  to  Bishop  Dionysius  ^ ; 
he  had  now  attained  extreme  old  age.  Some  bishops 
also  were  arrested  and  put  to  death,  after  long  confine- 
ment in  prison.  We  hear  of  Hesychius,  Pachymius, 
Theodore,  and,  above  all,  of  Phileas,  the  learned  Bishop 
of  Thmuis.  Before  he  became  bishop  he  had  filled  high 
offices ;  he  was  a  very  rich  man,  and  was  surrounded 
by  a  numerous  family.  His  relations  and  friends,  and 
even  Culcianus,-  the  prefect  himself,  did  all  in  their 
power  to  save  him  from  death,  but  in  vain.  He  remained 
unshaken.  With  him  died  also  Philoromus,  the  head  of 
the  financial  administration  in  Egypt.  From  his  prison, 
Phileas  had  written  to  his  flock  at  Thmuis  a  letter  in 
which  he  described  to  them  the  torments  suffered  by 
the  martyrs  of  Alexandria.  Eusebius  has  preserved  a 
fragment  of  this  letter.'^  As  in  the  Thebaid,  there  were 
executions  of  numbers  at  a  time.  Besides  the  martyrs  of 
whom  Phileas  speaks,  we  hear  of  thirty-seven  who,  divided 
into  four  groups,  perished  on  the  same  day,  by  means  of 
different  punishments  —  beheading,  drowning,  fire,  and 
crucifixion.'*  Several  of  them  were  clerics,  of  various  orders. 
It  was  not  only  in  their  own  country  that  the  Egyptians 

'  Eusebius,  H.  E.  vii.  ii  ;  viii.  13. 

2  This  Culcianus  was  prefect  from  the  year  303,  as  we  learn  from 
a  papyrus  published  in  1898  by  Grenfell  and  Hunt,  Oxyrhynchiis 
Papyri,  Part  I.,  p.  132.  Hierocles,  of  whom  we  have  spoken  above, 
must  have  been  his  successor. 

^  Eusebius,  H.  E.  viii.  9,  10.  The  Passion  of  SS.  Phileas  and 
Philoromus,  published  by  Ruinart,  may  have  been  retouched  here  and 
there  from  Rufinus,  but  it  contains  parts  which  are  certainly  genuine. 

^  Compare  the  homily  published  by  the  Bollandists  (January  18), 
and  by  Ruinart,  under  the  title  Passio  ss.  xxxvii.  Martyruin  ^gypti- 


38  THE  GREAT  PERSECUTION  [ch.  i. 

confessed  the  faith.  Several  are  mentioned  by  Eusebius 
as  having  found  martyrdom  in  Palestine  and  elsewhere. 
He  himself  saw  some  of  them,  in  the  amphitheatre  at 
Tyre,  who  were  thrown  to  the  wild  beasts,  and  whom 
the  beasts  refused  to  devour.  When  it  was  decided  to 
send  recalcitrant  Christians  to  the  mines,  the  confessors 
of  the  Thebaid  were  despatched  to  the  porphyry  quarries, 
near  the  Red  Sea.  But  this  prison  was  not  large  enough 
for  all  of  them :  and  gangs  of  Christian  convicts  were 
continually  sent  to  Palestine,  to  Idumea,  to  the  island  of 
Cyprus,  and  to  Cilicia. 

Besides  Egypt  and  the  Thebaid,  where  the  persecution 
lasted  so  long,  Eusebius  mentions  the  African  and 
Mauritanian  provinces,^  in  which  it  was  of  short  duration, 
as  among  the  countries  where  Christians  had  most  to 
suffer.  The  commentary  on  these  words  is  furnished  to 
us  by  the  long  lists  of  Egyptian  and  African  martyrs, 
preserved  in  the  Martyrology  attributed  to  Saint  Jerome. 
With  regard  to  Africa  especially,  groups  of  thirty,  fifty, 
and  a  hundred  names  recur  very  frequently  all  through 
the  calendar.  It  is,  apparently,  to  Diocletian's  persecution, 
rather  than  to  any  of  the  preceding  ones,  that  these 
hecatombs  must  be  referred.-  The  same  impression 
oru7n,  with  the  text  of  the  Hieronymian  Martyrology  for  February 
9  and  14,  as  well  as  for  May  18.  The  charming  story  of  Didymus 
and  Theodora  {Boll.,  April  28,  and  Ruinart)  is  very  doubtful  as  a  fact. 
St  Ambrose,  who  had  heard  it  related  {De  virginihus,  ii.  4)  places  the 
scene  of  it  at  Antioch.  Cf  Bibliotheca  hagiographica  latina,  p.  1 169, 
1304. 

1  H.  E.  viii.  6. 

-  In  the  matter  of  descriptive  documents,  the  Passion  of  Crispina 
of  Thagura  (Theveste,  December  5,  304)  is  the  only  one  from  the 
hand  of  a  contemporary.  Others,  such  as  those  of  the  three  saints, 
Maxima,  Secunda,  and  Donatilla  (Tuburbo  Lucernaria,  July  30, 
mentioned  also  in  the  Passio  Crisphiae  ;  see  Anal.  Boll.  vol.  ix.  p.  1 10)  ; 
of  St  Mammarius  and  his  companions  ( Vagetises,  June  10  ;  cf. 
Mabillon,  Analecta,  iv.  93  ;  this  Passion  is  by  the  same  author  as 
the  preceding  one)  ;  of  St  Martienna  of  CcEsarea  (July  11)  ;  of  St 
Fabius  of  Cartenna  (July  31,  Anal.  Boll.  vol.  ix.  p.  123);  of  St 
Typasius  of  Tigava  (January  11,  ibid.  p.  116)  ;  all  belong  also  to  the 
persecution  of  Diocletian,  but  they  were  written  fairly  late  in  the 
4th  century. 


p.  48]  MARTYRDOMS  AT  ANTIOCH  39 

may    be    deduced    from    the    Martyrology    as    concerns 
Nicomedia,  where  the  persecution  raged  very  cruelly. 

As  to  the  other  countries  of  the  Orient,  our  informa- 
tion is  very  inadequate.  We  know  from  Eusebius  that 
Silvanus,  the  Bishop  of  Emesa,  suffered  under  Maximin, 
in  the  amphitheatre  of  his  episcopal  city;  that  Tyrannion, 
the  Bishop  of  Tyre,  and  Zenobius,  a  priest  of  Sidon, 
confessed  the  faith  at  Antioch ;  that  the  former  was 
thrown  into  the  sea,  and  that  Zenobius  died  under  the 
agonies  of  the  rack.^ 

The  Bishop  of  Laodicea,  Stephen,  apostatized  shame- 
fully. Like  his  predecessor,  Anatolius,  he  was  a  man  of 
great  culture,  well  versed  in  literature  and  philosophy, 
but  either  of  weak  character  or  a  hypocrite,  as  his  fall 
proved.- 

At  Antioch  also  suffered,  quite  at  the  beginning  of  the 
persecution  (303),  a  certain  Romanus,  rural  deacon  of 
Cajsarea  in  Palestine,  who  was  passing  through  the 
S}'rian  metropolis,  and  made  himself  conspicuous  by  his 
vigorous  protests  against  the  apostates.  As  to  the 
clergy  and  the  faithful  of  Antioch,  we  do  not  know  what 
happened    to   them.^      But   the   persecution   was    severe. 

'  Tyrannion  and  Zenobius  must  have  been  arrested  outside  their 
own  cities,  for  they  were  under  the  jurisdiction,  not  of  the  governor 
of  Syria,  but  of  the  governor  of  Phoenicia.  It  is  also  strange  that 
Eusebius  speaks  of  the  Bishop  of  Tyre  as  having  been  thrown  into 
the  sea  (daXaTrioii  wapadodeh  pvdo7i)  at  Antioch,  which  was  not  a 
maritime  town. 

Eusebius,  //.  E.  vii.  32,  §  22. 

^  Eusebius,  in  his  Chronicle,  places  the  death  of  Bishop  Cyril  in 
301-302,  before  the  persecution,  and  says,  in  his  Ecclesiastical  History^ 
vii.  32,  §  I,  that  the  persecution  reached  a  head  {7JK/ji.acr€v)  under 
Tyrannus,  his  successor.  It  is  impossible  that  he  could  have  been 
mistaken  to  the  extent  to  which  he  would  have  been,  if  we  were  to 
admit,  on  the  faith  of  a  document  of  very  little  authority,  that  Cyril 
had  been  condemned  to  the  mines  in  303,  and  sent  to  Pannonia  to 
work  in  the  marble  quarries.  The  Passion  of  the  Four  Crowned  Ones 
(October  8)  mentions,  it  is  true,  a  bishop  in  ciistodia  religatum, 
nomine  Cyrilltim,  de  AniiocJiia  addnctutn,  pro  nomine  Chris  ti  vine  turn, 
qui  iam  mitltis  verbcribus  fiierat  maceratus  per  annos  tres,  who 
had  died  in  prison  at  the  same  quarries.  But  so  grave  a  fact  as  the 
confession  and  exile  of  the  chief  Bishop  of  tlie  Orient  could  not  have 


40  THE  GREAT  PERSECUTION  [ch.  i. 

Eusebius  ^  tells  us  of  pyres  on  which  the  martyrs  were  burnt 
gradually  over  a  slow  fire,  and  of  the  altars  on  which,  when 
commanded  to  drop  grains  of  incense,  they  allowed  their 
hands,  flesh  and  bone  alike,  rather  to  be  devoured  by  the 
flame.  Without  mentioning  the  names,  he  recalls  the 
remembrance,  apparently  known  to  his  readers,  of  two 
young  girls,  two  sisters,  distinguished  by  their  birth  and 
fortune  as  much  as  by  their  virtue,  who  were  thrown 
together  into  the  sea ;  and  also  the  story  of  a  noble  lady, 
who,  when  the  persecution  broke  out,  fled  with  her 
daughters,  no  doubt  beyond  the  Euphrates.  Their  retreat 
being  discovered,  they  were  being  brought  back  to  Antioch. 
But  at  the  crossing  of  the  river,  in  despair  at  the  thought 
of  the  treatment,  worse  than  death,  which  awaited  them 
on  their  return,  they  escaped  from  their  escort  and  threw 
themselves  into  the  current.^ 

With  regard  to  other  countries,  what  Eusebius  has 
preserved  is  the  recollection  of  extraordinary  punish- 
ments ;  in  Arabia,  Christians  were  killed  by  being  hewn 
in  pieces  by  a  hatchet ;  in  Cappadocia,  their  legs  were 
broken  ;  in  Mesopotamia,  they  were  suffocated,  hung  by 
their  feet  over  a  brazier ;  in  Pontus,  sharp-pointed  reeds 
were  driven  under  their  nails,  or  the  most  sensitive  parts 
of  their  bodies  were  sprinkled  with  molten  lead.  Certain 
ofiicials  distinguished  themselves  by  their  ingenuity  in 
combining  torture  and  obscenity. 

If  such  horrors  as  these  had  come  to  our  knowledge 

escaped  the  knowledge  of  Eusebius,  and  he  had  no  reason  for 
concealing  it.  We  have  spoken  of  his  theological  animosities.  But, 
when  he  wrote,  he  could  have  had  no  cause  for  exhibiting  them  to 
such  an  extent.  Peter  of  Alexandria  was  certainly  not  of  his  way  of 
thinking.  But  has  Eusebius  kept  silence  as  to  his  virtues,  his  learning, 
and  his  martyrdom? 

^  H.  E.  viii.  12. 

^  The  lawfulness  of  suicide,  in  such  a  case,  was  recognized  by  the 
Church.  There  is  a  homily  of  St  John  Chrysostom  in  honour  of 
these  saints,  Hojn.  ^\  ;  cf.  Augustine,  De  civitate  Dei,  i.  26.  St  John 
Chrysostom  gives  the  name  of  the  mother  as  Domnina,  and  of  the 
daughters  as  Berenice  and  Prosdocia.  St  Ambrose,  De  virginibus,  iii. 
7,  and  Ep.  2,7,  also  speaks  of  this  story,  with  which  he  associates  the 
name  of  St  Pelagia. 


p.  50-1]  LITERARY  POLEMICS  41 

through  legendary  stories,  we  could  never  have  sufficiently 
distrusted  the  exaggeration  of  the  narrators ;  in  the 
present  case,  the  man  who  relates  them  was  in  a  position 
to  be  well  informed,  and  little  inclined  to  pervert  the 
meaning  of  the  documents  which  had  been  transmitted  to 
him.  When  Eusebius  wrote,  the  fires  were  scarcely 
extinguished  :  their  ashes  were  still  warm.  We  must 
therefore  believe  him.  And,  moreover,  have  we  not  other 
stories,  less  ancient  and  as  well  attested,  to  tell  us  that 
in  matters  of  this  kind  anything  and  everything  is 
possible  ? 

As  regards  all  the  special  occurrences,  of  which  the 
recollection  was  consecrated  in  each  country  by  religious 
observance,  and  cultivated  by  local  hagiography,  it 
would  be  impossible  to  enumerate  them  here.  Among 
the  documents  which  treat  of  them,  there  are  very  few  on 
which  we  can  rely  for  the  details  of  the  circumstances. 
Of  the  features  which  we  can  really  gain  from  them,  those 
which  are  of  general  interest  are  already  known  to  us 
through  Eusebius  and  Lactantius :  the  others  have  no 
importance  except  for  local  history. 

8.  Literary  Polemics. 

To  the  strife  of  laws  and  police  was  added  that  of 
literary  controversy.  This,  indeed,  had  never  really 
ceased.  After  Tertullian,  Minucius  Felix  and  St  Cyprian 
had  again  set  before  public  opinion  the  exposition  and 
the  defence  of  Christianity ;  to  the  Greek  Apologies 
of  the  2nd  century  had  succeeded  various  writings,  of 
which  we  still  possess  the  text,  but  without  knowing  who 
were  the  authors  of  them.^ 

When  Porphyry's  book  against  the  Christians 
appeared,  Methodius  and  Eusebius  had  answered  it  at 
once.  The  persecution  had  excited  the  zeal  of  people 
who  delighted — it  is  a  characteristic  of  every  age — in 
crushing  the  conquered.  An  African  rhetorician, 
Arnobius,  an  official  professor  at  Sicca  Veneria,  had  for 

'  Cf.  vol.  i.,  pp.  153-4. 


42  THE  GREAT  PERSECUTION  [ch.  i. 

a  long  time  attacked  the  Christians,  when,  suddenly 
touched  by  divine  grace,  he  became  a  Christian  himself. 
The  bishop  of  that  place,  who  did  not  believe  in  his 
conversion,  asked  him  for  guarantees  of  it,  and  Arnobius 
gave  one  of  the  most  striking  kind,  by  publishing  a 
searching  attack  upon  paganism.^  While  he  was  thus 
engaged  in  refuting  himself,  he  seems  at  the  same  time 
to  have  had  in  view  a  certain  Cornelius  Labeo,  the  author 
of  writings  hostile  to  Christianity.  His  work  bears  the 
mark  of  the  haste  with  which  it  was  composed  ;  the  style 
of  it  is  very  careless ;  and  with  regard  to  the  soul,  its 
origin  and  its  immortality,  the  language  of  the  author  is 
that  of  a  neophyte  inadequately  instructed. 

Arnobius  had  among  his  disciples  at  Sicca  Veneria 
another  African  who  was  to  take  a  much  more  prominent 
place  as  a  Christian  apologist."-  This  was  Lactantius 
{L.  Caccilins  Firmianus  Lactantius),  who  had  acquired  as 
a  rhetorician  a  reputation  sufficient  to  induce  the  Emperor 
Diocletian  to  invite  him  to  Nicomedia,  and  to  entrust  him 
with  an  official  professorship  of  Latin  oratory.  He  had 
begun  life  as  a  pagan,  and  was  so  still,  to  all  appearance, 
at  the  time  of  his  promotion.  At  Nicomedia  he  was 
converted.  The  persecution  deprived  him  of  his  position  ; 
he  was  reduced  to  private  teaching,  which  was  little 
remunerative  to  a  professor  of  Latin  in  this  Greek  city, 
and  especially  to  a  Christian  in  such  times.  He  employed 
his  enforced  leisure  in  writing  in  the  defence  of  his 
beliefs.  He  was  a  man  of  ability.  Happily  for  his 
literary  fame,  he  did  not  take  Arnobius  as  his  model,  and 
tried  rather  to  imitate  Cicero.  Of  his  writings  there  are 
preserved  to  us  two  little  treatises :  one  on  the  nature  of 
man  {De  opificio  Dei),  the  other  on  certain  anthropo- 
morphisms {De  ira  Dei) ;  but  also,  and  more  important, 
a  great  apologetic  work,  the  Divine  Institutions  in  seven 

^  De  errore  profanarum  religionttm.  With  regard  to  this  book, 
see  Monceaux,  Histoire  littcraire  de  I'A/riqtee  chrcttenne,  vol.  iii., 
p.  241  et  seq.j  cf.  Martin  Schanz,  Geschichte  der  roni.  Litteratur, 
N  OS.  611,  749,  et  seq. 

-  Monceaux,  toe.  cit.,  p.  286  ;  Schanz,  loc.  cit.,  p.  445. 


p.  53]  LACTANTIUS  AND  HIEKOCLES  4P. 

books,  of  which  he  himself  made  a  summary  {Epitoi/ic). 
It  was  the  attacks  of  his  enemies  which  made  him  take  up 
his  pen.  While  the  executioners  were  doing  their  worst 
against  the  Christians,  a  certain  sophist,  whose  name  he 
has  not  preserved,  attacked  them  in  his  lectures.  An 
eloquent  apostle  of  theoretical  poverty,  he  could  be  seen 
walking  about  in  a  short  mantle,  with  his  hair  in  disorder ; 
but  it  was  well  known  that  his  possessions  were  constantl}' 
increasing,  thanks  to  the  favour  of  highly  placed  person- 
ages, that  at  his  house  a  better  dinner  was  served  than  in 
the  imperial  palace,  and  also  that  no  kind  of  austerity 
was  practised  there.  He  preached  to  the  public  that  the 
duty  of  philosophers  was  to  correct  the  errors  of  men, 
and  to  guide  them  in  the  right  way ;  he  praised  the 
emperors  highly  for  having  undertaken  the  defence  of  the 
old  religion  and  violently  attacked  the  new,  of  which  he 
knew  next  to  nothing,  as  was  easily  perceived.  The 
public,  moreover,  agreed  that  the  time  was  ill  chosen  for 
this  kind  of  rhetorical  display,  and  that  it  was  discreditable 
to  trample  in  this  way  on  the  fallen.  The  sophist  was 
hissed. 

After  him  another  enemy  of  Christianity  entered  the 
lists,  Hierocles,  formerly  governor  of  Phoenicia,  then 
vicarms,  and  finally  governor  of  Bithynia.  He  was  a 
very  great  personage  and  a  councillor  of  the  emperor  ; 
he  had  been  a  member  of  the  famous  council  in  which 
the  persecution  was  decided  upon.  He  published  a  work 
in  two  books  with  the  title  :  To  ike  Christians,  the  friejid 
of  trutJi}  Lactantius  considers  it  very  well  informed,  and 
especially  familiar  with  the  difficulties  of  Holy  Scripture. 
This  can  easily  be  explained.  Hierocles  had  stolen 
largely  from  Porphyry.  On  certain  points,  however,  he 
followed  his  own  path.  I  do  not  know  whence  he  had 
obtained  the  information  that  Jesus,  after  being  driven 
away  by  the  Jews,  put  Himself  at  the  head  of  a  band  of 
nine  hundred  brigands.  The  romance  of  Philostratus  had 
suggested  to  him  the  idea  of  making  numerous  com- 
parisons between  the  Saviour  and   Apollonius  of  Tyana. 


44  THE  GREAT  PERSECUTION  [cir.  i. 

On  this  point  he  was  attacked  by  Eusebius,  who  devoted 
a  special  book  to  him.  When,  later  on,  he  became 
governor  in  Egypt,  he  had  to  do  with  an  apologist  of  a 
different  kind.^ 

As  for  Lactantius,  a  saddened  witness  of  these 
cowardly  attacks,  they  furnished  him  with  the  idea,  not 
of  measuring  his  own  strength  against  that  of  the 
aggressors — for  he  did  not  think  they  were  worth  the 
trouble — but  of  taking  up  again,  against  all  the  adversaries 
of  Christianity  and  with  an  appeal  to  the  opinion  of 
cultivated  persons,  the  task  which  Tertullian  and  Cyprian 
had  assumed  before  him.  The  first  of  these,  he  thought, 
had  written  with  too  much  polemical  ardour,  the  second 
had  made  use  of  arguments  which  appealed  to  Christians 
themselves  rather  than  to  their  pagan  adversaries.  A 
calm  statement  in  good  style,  and  resting  upon  the 
ground  of  philosophy  and  literature  common  to  all  well- 
educated  persons :  this  was  what  Lactantius  intended  to 
compose,  and  what  he  succeeded  in  producing.  He  was 
the  Cicero  of  Christianity. 

He  was  the  Christian  Cicero  even  to  the  Philippics ; 
for  it  was  certainly  he  (the  fact  is  now  scarcely  disputed) 
who  was  the  author  of  that  spirited  pamphlet,  The  Death 
of  the  PersecutorSy  published  in  313,  just  when  Licinius  was 
posting  up,  on  the  walls  of  Nicomedia,  the  edict  of 
freedom.  Lactantius,  who  during  the  evil  days  had  seen 
his  friends  massacred  or  tortured,  and  had  found  himself 
obliged  to  leave  Nicomedia,  returned  there  to  enjoy  the 
religious  peace.  He  was  still  unhappy.  It  was  only 
some  years  later  that  fortune  smiled  upon  him : 
Constantine  summoned  him  to  the  West,  and  entrusted 
him  with  the  education  of  his  son  Crispus  (about  the  year 
317).     He  was  then  far  advanced  in  years. 

^  This  is  the  same  Hierocles  of  whom  we  have  spoken  above,  p.  34. 


CHAPTER   II 

CONSTANTINE,   THE   CHRISTIAN    EMPEROR 

Conversion  of  Constantine.  Religious  measures  in  the  West.  The 
Pagans  tolerated  and  the  Christians  favoured.  Licinius  and  his 
attitude  towards  the  Christians.  The  war  of  323  :  Constantine 
sole  emperor.  Development  of  his  religious  policy.  Measures 
against  the  temples  and  the  sacrifices.  Foundation  of  Churches  : 
the  Holy  Places  of  Palestine.  Foundation  of  Constantinople. 
Death  of  Constantine. 

I.  Constantine,  Emperor  of  the  West. 

The  victory  of  Constantine  over  Maxentius  was  universally 
considered  as  an  extraordinary  event,  in  which  the 
intervention  of  the  Divinity  could  scarcely  fail  to  be 
recognized.  The  senate  expressed  this  idea  by  causing 
to  be  engraved  upon  the  arch  raised  in  commemoration 
of  the  event  the  two  famous  words:  INSTINCTV 
DIVINITATIS.  The  pagans,  many  of  whom  were  also 
fighting  under  the  banners  of  the  conqueror  and  in  his 
train,  attributed  their  success  to  the  abstract  Divinity 
which  they  honoured  in  their  gods,  or  even  to  the 
intervention  of  celestial  legions,  led  by  the  deified 
Emperor  Constantius  Chlorus.^  But  the  general  impres- 
sion was  that  the  catastrophe  in  which  Maxentius  and  his 
brilliant  army  had  perished  was  the  work  of  the  God  of 
the  Christians.  Before  the  battle,  the  "  tyrant "  had 
appealed  to  all  the  resources  of  pagan  religion :  oracles, 
aruspicy,  sacrifices,  divination,  all  had  been    resorted    to 

*  Panegyricon,  ix.  2  ;  x.  14.  M.  Boissier  justly  compares  these 
various  interpretations  with  those  regarding  the  Thundering  Legion 
{La  Jin  du  paganisviCy  vol.  i.,  p.  44) ;  cf.  Vol.  I.  of  this  History,  p.  182. 


46      CONSTANTINE,  CHRISTIAN  EMPEROR   [cii.  ii. 

with  extraordinary  completeness.  While  marching  against 
him,  the  soldiers  of  Constantino  had  displayed  upon  their 
shields  the  sign  v9,  formed  from  the  first  two  letters  of 
the  name  of  Christ.  This  was  in  consequence  of  a  dream 
of  their  prince/  who  had  commanded  them  to  depict  this 
strange  emblem  upon  their  arms.  Maxentius  had  relied 
upon  the  assistance  of  the  ancient  gods  :  Constantino  had 
placed  himself  and  his  army  under  the  protection  of  the 
Christian  God. 

The  battle  at  the  Milvian  Bridge  confirmed  him  in 
his  reliance,  and  decided  his  definite  adhesion  to  Christi- 
anity. But  this  reliance  had  its  roots  already  in  the  past. 
It-  is  probable  that  Christianity  had  gained  some  footing 
in  the  family  of  Constantius  Chlorus,  just  as  it  had  in  that 
of  Diocletian  ;  one  of  the  sisters  of  Constantine  had  received 
the  entirely  Christian  name  of  Anastasia.  Although  the 
edicts  of  persecution  had  borne  the  name  of  Constantius,  as 
well  as  those  of  his  imperial  colleagues,  he  himself  in  his 
own  dominions-  had  shed  no  Christian  blood.  Eusebius 
represents  him  as  being  himself  a  Christian  at  heart.  Yet 
we  cannot  admit  that  he  had  made  the  formal  declarations 
of  adhesion  involved  in  admission  among  the  catechumens, 
and  especially  in  baptismal  initiation.  Brought  up  in  a 
family  where  Christianity  was,  if  not  actually  practised, 
at  least  regarded  favourably,  Constantine  had  the 
opportunity  during  his  stay  at  Nicomedia,  of  seeing  how 
the  faithful  were  treated  there.  The  instigator  of  the 
persecution,  Galerius,  was  his  father's  enemy  and  his  own. 
When  he  became  master  in  the  western  provinces,  he 
immediately  assumed  a  favourable  attitude  towards  those 
who  were  being  persecuted  elsewhere.  Nevertheless,  it 
was  still  a  long  step  from  these  tolerant  inclinations  to 
personal  conversion,  and  the  latter  was  in  no  wise 
suggested  by  the  political  circumstances.  The  Christians 
were  far  less  numerous  in  the  West  than  in  Asia-Minor 
and  the  East  The  Emperor  of  the  Gauls,  so  far  as  he 
could  be  affected  by  the  religious  opinions  of  his  subjects, 
had  no  reason  for  abandoning  the  old  gods,  and  no 
^  Lactantius,  De  mort.  pers.  44.  -   Vita  Const,  i.  17. 


p.  58]  CONVERSION  OF  CONSTANTINE  47 

political    interest    in  declaring   himself  a  Christian.     But 
this  is  what  Constantine  did.     At  the  moment  when  he 
undertook  his  expedition  against  Maxentius,  anxious  to 
enlist  on  his  side,  not  only  all  possible   military  support 
and     precaution,     but     also     all     divine     assistance,     he 
bethought   himself  that   the   attitude  of    his   father   and 
himself  had  certainly  deserved  the  favour  of  the  God  of 
the    Christians ;    that    he   had   even    an    assurance   of   it 
already  in  the  success  which  had  always  hitherto  attended 
them,  while  the  other  sovereigns,  the  enemies  of  Christianity, 
Maximian,  Severus,  and  Galerius,  had  all  met  with  a  most 
tragic  end.     These  reflections,  which  seem  to  have  been 
familiar  to  him,  for  he  often  refers  to  them  in  his  letters, 
he  communicated  to   Eusebius  later  on,  adding  that,  to 
assist   him    in   coming   to   a   decision,  he   asked    God    to 
enlighten    him  by  some  marvellous  sign.     Shortly  after- 
wards, he  saw  in  the  sky,  and  his  whole  army  saw  it  with 
him,  a  Cross  of  light,  with  these  words  :  "  In  this  sign, 
conquer"^;  finally,  Christ  appeared  to  him  in  a  dream, 
holding  in  His  hand  the  same  sign  which  he  had  seen 
shining  in  the  heavens,  commanding  him  to  reproduce  it, 
and  make  use  of  it  as  a  defence  against  his  enemies.     He 
summoned  the  Christian  priests,  and  asked  them  what  was 
this  God  who  had  appeared  to  him,  and  what  was  the  mean- 
ing of  the  sign.     It  was  then  that  he  obtained  instruction 
in  the  Christian  religion  and  openly  professed  it. 

It  is  difficult  to  admit  that  Constantine  could  have 
been  down  to  that  time  so  ignorant  of  Christianity. 
The  story,  on  this  point  at  least,  reveals  a  little  arrange- 
ment. As  to  the  visions,  by  day  and  by  night,  we  have 
no  reason  to  doubt  Eusebius  when  he  tells  us  that  they  were 
related  to  him  by  Constantine ;  but  it  is  difficult  for  the 
historian  to  appreciate  the  exact  value  of  such  testimony, 
and,  speaking  generally,  to  investigate  with  any  profit  into 
such  personal  matters.  Leaving,  therefore,  to  mystery 
the  things  which  belong  to  mystery,  we  will  confine 
ourselves  here  to  stating  facts  known  as  facts,  and 
to   acknowledging   that    Constantine   undertook    the   war 

Toi'TCO    VlKa, 


48      CONSTANTINE,  CHRISTIAN  EMPEROR    [ch.  ii. 

against  Maxentius,  and  in  particular  the  encounter  at  the 
Milvian  Bridge,  in  the  firm  conviction  that  he  was  under 
the  protection  of  the  Christians'  God,  and  that,  from  that 
time  he  always  spoke  and  acted,  in  religious  matters,  as 
a  convinced  believer.  The  monogram  of  Christ,  painted 
upon  the  shields  of  his  soldiers,  displayed  at  the  top  of 
the  military  standards  iJabariDti),  soon  stamped  upon  the 
coins,  and  reproduced  in  a  thousand  different  ways,  gave 
an  unmistakeable  expression  of  the  opinions  of  the 
emperor.^  There  were  many  others.  Only  a  few 
months  after  the  battle  at  the  Milvian  Bridge,  we  find, 
among  his  personal  suite,  a  sort  of  ecclesiastical  councillor, 
Hosius,  Bishop  of  Cordova.  Several  letters,  despatched 
in  the  name  of  the  emperor  about  the  year  313,  give 
evidence  of  a  lively  feeling  of  Christian  piety.- 

In  fact,  the  event  had  happened  which  TertuUian  had 
declared  to  be  impossible  —  a  Christian  emperor.^ 
Constantine  could  already  have  signed  himself,  as  his 
Byzantine  successors  did,  iria-Tog  ^acriXevg  koI  avTOKparwp 
'Fwfialwu,  "Christian  prince  and  Emperor  of  the  Romans." 
And  it  was  not  merely  a  question  of  private  and  personal 
opinions,  the  consequences  of  which  might  never  have 
spread  beyond  the  family  circle  or  the  private  chapel. 
The  change  wrought  in  Constantine,  whatever  its  degree 
of  sincerity,  was  connected  with  external  events  of  the 
highest  importance,  the  defeat  of  persecution,  and  the 
downfall    of    Maxentius.      It   was    impossible   that   they 

^  Upon  this  subject  see  especially  Boissier,  La  fin  du  paganisme, 
vol.  i.,  p.  II  ci  seq. 

^  We  cannot  admire  too  much  the  artless  simplicity  of  certain 
critics,  who  approach  this  imperial  literature  with  the  preconceived 
idea  that  it  was  impossible  for  an  emperor  to  have  religious 
convictions ;  that  men  like  Constantine,  Constantius,  or  Julian,  were 
in  reality  free-thinkers,  who,  for  political  exigencies,  openly  proclaimed 
such  and  such  opinions.  In  the  4th  century,  free-thinkers,  if  there 
were  any,  were  rarae  aves,  whose  existence  could  not  be  assumed 
or  easily  accepted. 

^  "  Sed  et  Caesares  credidissent  super  Christo,  si  aut  Caesares  non 
essent  saeculo  necessarii  aut  si  et  christian!  potuissent  esse  Caesares." 
—Apol.  21. 


p.  61]  CONSTANTINE  AND  IJCINIl^S  49 

should  not  have  produced  a  reaction  in  the  management 
of  the  empire,  that  the  "  Emperor  of  the  Romans"  should 
not  be  inspired  by  the  "  Christian  prince."  This  was  felt 
immediately.  The  pagans  deemed  themselves  threatened  ; 
it  was  necessary  to  reassure  them,  and  we  have  a  proof 
of  this  desire  in  the  edict  which  followed  the  interview  at 
Milan.^  In  this  it  was  expressly  declared  that  religious 
liberty  was  not  intended  for  the  Christians  only,  but  for 
everybody. 

This  was  also  guaranteed  by  the  very  fact  that,  if  one 
of  the  two  emperors  was  a  Christian,  the  other  was  not. 
It  is  true  that  before  the  battle  of  Adrianople  Licinius 
himself  had  also  had  a  dream  from  heaven,  and  that  in  the 
moment  of  combat,  he  had  caused  his  soldiers  to  invoke 
the  "  Supreme  God  "  {siimmus  Dens)}  It  is  true  that  on 
the  day  after  his  victory  he  hastened  to  proclaim  religious 
liberty.  But,  after  the  year  314,  he  was  at  war  with 
Constantine,  and  his  devotion  to  the  suninius  Dens  must 
soon  have  suffered  from  his  irritation  against  his  Christian 
colleague. 

We  must  not  think  of  the  empires  of  Constantine  and 
Licinius  as  two  separate  states,  absolutely  independent  of 
each  other ;  they  were  merely  two  parts  of  the  same 
Roman  Empire,  governed  by  two  imperial  persons  as  col- 
leagues. Under  these  conditions,  if  there  were  differences, 
and  even  very  great  ones,  in  administrative  measures  and 
in  the  distribution  of  favours,  there  was  no  result  with 
regard  to  legislation  and  institutions  as  a  whole. 

Constantine  allowed  all  the  old  religious  institutions 
previously  existing  to  remain  as  they  were — the  temples, 
the  priestly  offices,  colleges  of  pontiffs,  quindecemvirs, 
and  vestal  virgins ;  he  himself  preserved  the  title  of 
Pontifex  Maximus,  and  even  the  prerogatives  of  this  office, 
in  so  far  as  they  did  not  imply  any  personal  compromise 
with  pagan  ceremonies.     The  public  mint  continued  for 

*  Supra^  p.  29. 

2  Lactantius  {De  fnort.  pers.  46)  even  gives  us  the  words  of  this 
prayer,  which,  he  says,  an  angel  {angelus  Dei)  had  revealed  to 
Licinius  during  his  sleep. 

II  D 


50     CONSTANTINE,  CHRISTIAN  EMPEROR     [ch.  ii. 

some  time  to  strike  coins  upon  which  appeared,  with  the 
imperial  effigy,  an  image  of  the  Sun  or  some  other  divinity. 
All  this  may  seem  strange,  and  difficult  to  reconcile  with 
serious  convictions.  But  we  must  not  forget  that  already, 
under  preceding  emperors,  it  was  possible  to  be  a 
municipal  magistrate,  governor  of  a  province,  a  royal 
chamberlain,  the  head  of  the  central  departments  of 
administration,  and  even  ^.flainen  of  a  city  or  a  province, 
and  at  the  same  time  to  be  a  Christian,  and  that  it  was 
easy  to  secure  dispensation  from  any  religious  ceremony 
incompatible  with  this  profession.  It  was  said  that  the 
supreme  office  had  already  been  filled  by  a  Christian  in 
the  person  of  Philip.  All  this  was  arranged  by  means  of 
contrivances  which  might  displease,  and  did  actually  dis- 
please, those  who  took  strict  views,  but  they  were  practised 
all  the  same.  Constantine,  who  was  the  master,  had  no 
difficulty  in  reconciling  his  beliefs  with  his  position  ;  and  it 
was  from  this  position  that  he  hastened  to  enable  his 
co-religionists  to  profit. 

We  have  already  seen  that  the  measures  agreed  upon 
at  Milan  between  the  two  emperors  assured  to  the 
Christians  the  most  complete  religious  liberty,  as  well  as 
the  restoration  to  the  churches  of  their  confiscated  posses- 
sions. Constantine  did  not  stop  there.  Understanding 
perfectly  that  the  restitution  of  their  real  property  was  far 
from  compensating  them  for  all  the  havoc  caused  by  the 
persecution,  he  tried  to  supply,  by  generous  alms-giving, 
the  more  pressing  needs  of  the  impoverished  communities  ; 
he  also  wished  that  indemnities  should  be  granted  to 
persons  who  had  suffered  from  the  persecution.  Bishop 
Hosius  was  appointed  to  arrange  the  details  and  to  dis- 
tribute the  funds.^ 

Clerics  were  exempt  from  burdensome  public  functions 
— that  is  to  say,  especially,  from  municipal  office  and  from 
statute   labour.-      Such  exemptions  had  for  a  long  time 

^  Eusebius,  H.  E.  x.  6,  Letter  from  Constantine  to  C^cilian, 
Bishop  of  Carthage  :  'ETreiSTjTrep  ^peire  ;  cf.  K  C  i.  41,  43. 

2  H.  E.  X.  7,  Letter  from  Constantine  to  the  proconsul  Anulinus  : 
'ETTtiS??  iK  TrXiwvuu.      This  decided  many  ecclesiastical  vocations  ;   it 


p.  63-4]      CHRISTIAN  BUILDINGS  IN  ROME  51 

been  granted  to  physicians,  to  professors,  and  to  persons 
who  had  filled  expensive  priestly  offices.  Constantine  con- 
sidered that  the  services  rendered  by  the  Christian  clergy 
deserved  the  same  immunity. 

There  is  no  doubt  that  from  these  early  days  his  piety 
was  displayed  in  the  foundation  of  churches.  In  Rome, 
the  old  dwelling-place  of  the  Laterani,  on  the  Coelian  Hill, 
which  had  several  times  been  confiscated,  belonged  at  this 
time  to  Fausta,  the  sister  of  Maxentius  and  the  wife  of 
Constantine.  The  episcopal  residence  was  transferred 
to  it:  and  in  the  autumn  of  313  Pope  Miltiades  held  a 
council  there.  It  was  not  long  before  the  construction  of 
a  basilica  annexed  to  this  dovms  ecclesiae  was  commenced, 
the  existing  church  of  the  Lateran.  Others  were  raised, 
by  the  care  of  the  emperor,  over  the  tombs  of  St  Peter,  St 
Paul,  and  St  Laurence.^  The  princesses  of  Constantine's 
family,  who  willingly  took  up  their  abode  in  Rome,  also 
built  churches.  Helena,  the  emperor's  mother,  lived  some- 
times at  the  donins  Sessoriana,  beyond  the  Lateran,  quite 
on  the  outskirts  of  the  city,  sometimes  at  the  villa  Ad  duas 
La2i7'os,  on  the  Labican  Way.  Near  the  latter  was  a 
Christian  cemetery,  in  which  slept  the  martyrs  Peter  and 
Marcellinus,  victims  of  the  last  persecution ;  Helena  built 
a  small  basilica  in  their  honour.  When,  later  on,  she 
visited  Palestine,  and  there  recovered  the  relics  of  the 
Passion,  she  reserved  part  of  them  for  the  Sessorimn,  which 
soon  became  like  a  little  Jerusalem,  and  even  took  its  name. 
Constantina,  the  daughter  of  Constantine,  had  a  special 
affection  for  another  imperial  villa,  situated  on  the  Via 
Nomentana,  near  the  cemetery  in  which  was  the  tomb  of 
St  Agnes ;  she  raised  a  basilica  there  with  a  baptistery  ^ 

became  necessary  to  forbid  the  clerical  profession  to  members  of 
municipal  bodies  and  to  persons  who  were  in  a  position  to  become 
members. 

'  The  Constantinian  basilicas  of  St  Paul  and  St  Laurence  were 
very  small,  far  below  the  dimensions  of  the  churches  of  the  Lateran 
and  of  St  Peter. 

'  It  was  in  this  baptistery  that  Constantina  and  her  sister  Helena, 
the  wife  of  Julian,  were  buried,  in  a  large  sarcophagus  of  porphyry, 
which  is  now  in  the  museum  of  the  Vatican.     Another  sarcophagus, 


52     CONSTANTINE,  CHRISTIAN  EMPEROR     [cii.  ii. 

which  still  exists.  Lastly,  it  is  possible  that  the  church  of 
Anastasia,  at  the  foot  of  the  Palatine,  derives  its  name 
from  one  of  the  emperor's  sisters.  This  lady  very  nearly 
became  empress.  She  had  been  married  to  an  important 
personage,  Bassianus,  whom  Constantine  wished  to  make 
a  Caesar.  He  would  have  assigned  Italy  to  him  as  his 
jurisdiction :  Anastasia  would  have  sat  enthroned  on  the 
Palatine.  Unfortunately,  it  was  soon  discovered  that 
Bassianus  and  his  brother  Senecio  were  in  too  close  rela- 
tions with  Licinius.  Bassianus  was  got  rid  of,^  and  the 
surrender  of  Senecio,  who  had  taken  refuge  with  Licinius, 
having  been  demanded  in  vain,  war  broke  out  between 
the  two  emperors.  Licinius  was  defeated  at  Cibales,  in 
Pannonia,  and  afterwards  in  Thrace,  and  finally  purchased 
peace  by  the  sacrifice  of  Illyricum  (end  of  314). 

This  peace  was  only  a  truce.  It  lasted  eight  years 
(315-323).  Of  this  period  there  remain  to  us  several  laws 
made  by  Constantine  which  testify  to  his  good  intentions 
towards  Christians.  He  forbade  the  Jews,  under  penalty 
of  being  burnt,  to  stone  members  of  their  religion  who 
were  converted  to  Christianity  '^ ;  he  allowed  the  manu- 
mission of  slaves  to  be  recorded  in  church  in  the  presence 
of  the  bishop  and  the  clergy^;  he  ordered  Sunday  to  be 
kept  as  a  day  of  rest  in  all  tribunals,  public  offices,  and 
workshops  of  the  cities*;  he  proclaimed  liberty  to  make  a 
will  in  favour  of  the  churches.^  As  to  paganism,  he  pre- 
served to  it  its  freedom,  confining  himself  to  the  prohibition, 
in  private  houses,  of  the  practice  of  divination ;  in  the 
temples  he  allowed  these  ceremonies,  and  even,  in  certain 
cases,  prescribed  them.*" 

exactly  similar  to  this  one,  received  the  remains  of  Helena,  the 
empress-mother.  This  also  has  been  transported  to  the  Vatican. 
There  are  still  to  be  seen,  at  Tor  Pignattara,  on  the  Labican  Way,  the 
imposing  ruins  of  the  mausoleum  of  Helena. 

1  "Convictus  at  stratus  est,"  says  the  Origo  Constantini  (Anon. 
Valesii,  ed.  Mommsen,  Chronica  minora,  vol.  i.,  p.  8). 

-  Codex  Theod.  xvi.  8,  i. 

3  Cod.  Just.  i.  13,  2  :  cf  Cod.  Theod.  iv.  7,  i. 

^  Cod.  Just.  iii.  12,  2.  ^  Cod.  Theod.  xvi.  2,  4. 

'■'  Cod.  Theod.  ix.  16,  i,  2,  3  ;  xvi.  10,  i. 


p.  66]  DISSENSIONS  IN  AFRICA  53 

But  the  good  will  of  the  emperor  was  soon  sorely  tried 
by  the  internal  dissensions  amongst  his  proteges.  The 
Church  of  Africa  gave  him  a  great  deal  of  trouble  from  the 
very  beginning.  There,  two  religious  parties  had  been 
formed,  both  of  which  claimed  to  be  the  Catholic  Church. 
The  persecuting  princes  had  made  no  distinction  between 
Christians ;  heretics  and  orthodox  believers  had  been 
proscribed  together,  and  more  than  one  among  the 
dissidents  had  given  his  life  for  the  common  faith.  But 
Constantine,  for  his  own  part,  wished  to  bestow  his 
support  and  favour  exclusively  upon  the  authentic 
Church ;  he  had  no  wish  to  protect  everyone  indiscrimin- 
ately. This  at  once  furnished  an  urgent  motive  for  his 
interest  in  the  African  dispute.  The  "  Christian  prince  " 
wished  to  know  where  in  Africa  his  brothers  in  religion 
were  to  be  found.  As  to  the  "  Emperor  of  the  Romans," 
he  had  another  reason  for  intervening,  the  quarrel  having 
reached  such  proportions  that  public  order  was  disturbed. 
Therefore  it  is  not  astonishing  that  he  did  all  in  his 
power  to  minimize  the  quarrel :  that  he  brought  about 
assemblies  of  bishops,  and  ordered  official  enquiries ;  that 
he  himself  assumed  the  position  of  arbitrator,  and  then 
carried  out  the  execution  of  sentences  decided  upon,  with 
mingled  leniency  and  severity.  The  public  officials  were 
set  to  work,  and  post-carriages  were  used  to  carry  the 
bishops  to  the  places  of  the  councils.  We  need  not  regard 
this  as  a  special  mark  of  favour  to  the  episcopate.  It  was 
assuredly  not  for  their  own  pleasure  that  the  bishops 
took  long  journeys,  at  his  invitation,  to  Rome,  to  Aries, 
or  Milan ;  it  was  to  assist  the  emj^eror  in  restoring 
order.  In  providing  carriages  for  the  bishops,  Constantine 
was  actuated  by  State  reasons,  just  as  Diocletian  had 
deemed  himself  to  be  in  imprisoning  them. 

2.   TJie  East  under  the  Government  of  Luinius. 

Under  Licinius  also  there  were  meetings  of  bishops. 
The  Christians,  finally  delivered  from  Maximin,  breathed 
again,  resumed  their  assemblies,  restored  the  ruins  of  their 
churches — ruins    both    material    and    moral.      Numerous 


54     CONSTANTINE,  CHRISTIAN  EMPEROR     [ch.  ii. 

must  have  been  the  dedication  festivals  at  that  time,  like 
that  of  the  great  church  of  Tyre,  at  which  the  historian 
Eusebius,  already  bishop  of  Caesarea,  was  present.  He 
pronounced  there  a  great  formal  oration,  and,  that  this 
might  not  be  lost  to  posterity,  he  inserted  it  in  the 
last  edition  of  his  Ecclesiastical  History}  Of  two  councils 
held  during  the  reign  of  Licinius,  one  at  Ancyra,  the 
other  at  Neocaesarea,  the  canons  and  the  signatures 
remain  to  us.  The  canons  belong,  generally  speaking, 
to  the  ordinary  category  of  ecclesiastical  legislation — cases 
of  penitents,  rules  with  regard  to  ordinations,  and  other 
matters  of  that  kind.  But  more  than  half  the  canons 
of  Ancyra  treat  of  situations  resulting  from  the  recent 
persecution;  it  was  still  quite  close,  and  therefore  it  is 
probable  that  this  council  was  held  about  the  year  314. 
In  the  canons  of  Neocaesarea,  there  is  no  longer  any 
trace  of  the  persecution.  The  two  councils  included  the 
bishops  of  Asia-Minor,  Cilicia,  and  Syria ;  at  both  of 
them  there  were  present  the  Bishops  of  Antioch  and  of 
Caesarea  in  Cappadocia,  Vitalis  and  Leontius. 

The  tranquillity,  which  such  assemblages  of  bishops 
imply,  did  not  last  long.  Any  influence  which  Constantine 
may  have  had  over  Licinius,  either  directly  or  by  means 
of  his  sister  Constantia,  was  soon  destroyed  by  jealousy 
and  the  spirit  of  intrigue.  A  time  came  when  Galerius' 
old  companion-in-arms  thought  it  necessary  to  prepare 
his  revenge  for  the  campaign  of  314.  Constantine 
became,  for  him,  the  enemy.  In  this  state  of  mind 
he  could  but  distrust  the  Christians,  of  whom  his  rival 
was  the  benefactor  in  the  West  and  the  hope  in  the 
East.  He  began,  as  Diocletian  had  done,  by  dismissing 
all  Christians  from  his  personal  service  and  from  palace 
appointments.  Then  came  the  turn  of  the  army :  either 
military    service    or    Christianity    must    be    renounced.'^ 

1  H.  E.  X.  4. 

-  With  regard  to  the  persecution  of  Licinius,  see  especially 
Eusebius,  //.  E.  x.  8,  and  V.  C.  i.  49-56 ;  Council  of  Nicaea, 
c.  11-14;  Constantine's  edict  directing  reparation  for  damages 
caused,  in  Eusebius,    V.  C.  ii.  24-35. 


p.  69]  HOSTILITY  OF  LICINIUS  55 

Everyone  was  forbidden  to  visit  or  assist  the  prisoners 
— a  measure  which,  especially  at  such  a  moment,  was  a 
serious  blow  to  the  free  exercise  of  Christian  charity. 
Though  little  inclined  to  severity  in  his  own  morals, 
Licinius  discovered  that  it  was  unseemly  that  women 
should  take  part  in  public  worship,  or  be  catechized  by 
men ;  and  even  when  men  only  were  admitted  to  the 
Christian  meetings,  they  seemed  to  him  too  numerous 
to  be  allowed  in  the  towns :  religious  services  had  to 
be  conducted  outside  the  walls.  He  had  a  particular 
objection  to  episcopal  assemblies  as  composed  of 
persons  whom  he  suspected  of  being  far  too  favourably 
inclined  towards  his  western  colleague :  councils  were 
forbidden,  and  many  bishops  were  individually  persecuted, 
under  various  pretexts. 

These  regulations  and  proceedings  did  not,  so  far, 
constitute  an  overt  persecution.  The  profession  of 
Christianity  and  the  exercise  of  public  worship,  apart 
from  certain  restrictions,  were  allowed  to  private  indi- 
viduals. But  as  to  soldiers,  employes,  officials,  and 
anyone  who  desired  the  imperial  favour,  it  was  no  longer 
the  same.  This  was  enough  to  cause  many  apostasies  ; 
the  Council  of  Nicaea,  after  Licinius,  like  that  of  Ancyra, 
after  Maximin,  had  to  legislate  upon  this  subject.  There 
were  not  only  apostates :  there  were  also  confessors  and 
martyrs.  Several  bishops  lost  their  lives,  notably  amongst 
them  Basil  of  Amasia.^  The  region  of  Pontus  was  treated 
with  special  severity ;  in  many  places  the  churches  were 
closed,  and  even  destroyed.  It  was  at  Sebaste,  in 
Armenia-Minor,  that  there  took  place  the  celebrated 
drama  of  the  forty  martyrs  of  the  frozen  pool.  We 
still  possess  a  touching  document,  the  testament  ^  of 
these  Christian  soldiers ;  in  it  they  took  leave  of  their 
friends,  and  bequeathed  to  them  the  only  thing  they 
could  dispose  of — their  own  remains.  Other  episodes 
have   been    preserved    and   cultivated    by  hagiographical 

'  Amasia    was     the    metropolis    of    the    province    then    called 
Diospontus,  later  Helenopontus. 

-  Gebhardt,  Acta  niartyriim  sclccta^  p.  166. 


56     CONSTANTINE,  CHRISTIAN  EMPEROR    [ch.  ii. 

tradition ;  it  is  safer  to  confine  oneself  to  generalities, 
as  they  are  enumerated  by  Eusebius,  an  eye-witness,  and 
by  Constantine,  in  his  edict  of  reparation.^  Many 
Christians  lost  their  positions  and  honours,  whether  in 
the  army  or  in  the  various  public  offices ;  saw  their  goods 
confiscated ;  were  unjustly  attached  once  more  to  the 
municipal  bodies,  exiled,  banished  to  the  islands,  con- 
demned to  the  mines,  to  the  public  workshops,  to  the 
corvees.  They  were  made  slaves  of  the  imperial  treasury, 
were  even  sold  to  private  persons ;  and  many  of  them, 
accused  under  one  pretext  or  another,  paid  for  their 
attachment  to  Christianity  by  the  sacrifice  of  their  lives. 
The  story  of  these  sufferings  resounded  through  the 
West.  To  borrow  the  language  of  Eusebius,  that  part 
of  the  empire  which  was  still  enveloped  in  darkness 
turned  with  longing  eyes  towards  the  countries  where 
the  light  shone  brightly.  The  tension  between  the  two 
emperors  steadily  increased.  It  was  not  only  the 
Christians  who  had  cause  for  complaint.  Licinius,  a 
coarse  and  brutal  soldier,  was  transforming  himself 
more  and  more  into  a  typical  Asiatic  tyrant.  Con- 
stantine uttered  remonstrances ;  but  they  were  ill 
received.  In  this  state  of  smothered  hostility,  peace  was 
very  precarious.  Then  an  incident  occurred.  Licinius 
had  charge  of  the  frontier  on  the  Lower  Danube  ;  he 
neglected  this  duty.  The  Barbarians  crossed  the  river 
and  spread  themselves  throughout  Thrace.  Constantine 
was  then  at  Thessalonica ;  he  marched  against  them, 
drove  them  back,  and  forced  them  to  sue  for  mercy.  But 
this  operation  had  brought  him  into  the  territory  of 
Licinius,  to  whom  the  "  diocese "  of  Thrace  belonged. 
Licinius  was  enraged :  war  broke  out.  Defeated  near 
Adrianople  (July  3,  323)  and  besieged  in  Byzantium,  the 
Emperor  of  the  East  watched  the  arrival  of  the  victorious 
fleet,  commanded  by  Crispus,  Constantine's  son.  He 
recrossed  the  Bosphorus,  and  again  engaged  in  battle  at 
Chrysopolis  (Scutari)  on  September  18,  323  ;  he  was  again 
defeated.  His  wife  interceded  for  him,  and  his  life  was 
1    V.  C.  i.  30-35. 


F.  71-2]         NEW  EDICTS  OF  TOLERATION  57 

spared.  He  was  sent  to  Thessalonica,  where  doubtless  he 
soon  resumed  his  intrigues,  for  the  soldiers  demanded  his 
head,  and  Constantine  granted  their  request^ 

The  Emperor  of  the  West  entered  Nicomedia :  we  can 
imagine  the  acclamations  of  the  Christians, 


3.   Constantine^  sole  Emperor. 

Constantine  lost  no  time,  and  hastened  to  promulgate 
two  edicts.  In  the  first,-  he  provided  for  the  necessities  of 
the  situation,  recalled  the  exiles,  opened  the  prison  doors, 
restored  to  the  confessors  the  liberty,  property,  dignities, 
and  positions  of  which  they  had  been  deprived  ;  Christian 
soldiers  might,  according  to  their  choice,  re-enter  the 
army  or  remain  at  home  with  the  honesta  niissio  ;  the 
inheritances  of  the  martyrs  and  confessors  were  restored 
to  their  next-of-kin,  or,  if  there  were  none,  presented  to 
the  Churches ;  the  confiscated  property  of  the  latter  was 
given  back  to  them,  but  not  the  profits  accrued ;  in  short, 
everyone  was  re-established  in  the  state  he  had  been  in 
before  the  persecution,  so  far  as  possible.  In  another 
edict,^  Constantine  openly  proclaimed  himself  a  Christian, 
recalling  the  memory  of  his  victories  over  the  persecuting 
emperors,  and  attributing  them  to  succour  from  on  High  ; 
he  expressed  his  wish  to  see  all  his  subjects  also  embrace 
the  faith,  but  declared  that  he  would  constrain  no  one,  and 
that  those  who  held  other  opinions  were  free  to  profess 
and  practise  their  forms  of  worship  in  the  temples,  which 
would  remain  open.     At  the  same  time  he  encouraged  ^ 

'  Origo  Constaiitini  (Anon.  Valesii),  M.  G.  Auct.  Ant,  vol. 
ix.,  p.  ()  ;  cf.  p.  232.  With  regard  to  the  year,  see  Mommsen, 
Hermes,  vol.  xxxii.,  p.  545,  and  E.  Schwartz,  Nachrichteti,  p.  540 
et  seq. 

-  Eusebius  has  given  this  to  us,  according  to  the  copy  addressed 
to  the  inhabitants  of  the  province  of  Palestine,  iirapxi-(^TaLs  Ua\aiaTiv>]s 
{V.  C.  ii.  24  et  seq.). 

^  Eusebius,  V.  C.  ii.  48-59,  has  translated  it  from  the  Latin 
copy  addressed  "to  the  Easterns." 

*  Letter  to  Eusebius,  V.  C.  ii.  46  ;  this  is  only  a  specimen. 
Eusebius  says  that  he  was  the  first  person  to  receive  such  a  letter. 


58     CONSTANTINE,  CHRISTIAN  EMPEROR    [ch.  ii. 

the  bishops  to  rebuild  their  ruined  churches,  and  to  con- 
struct larger  ones ;  he  gave  orders  to  his  financial  agents 
to  make  them  large  grants  from  the  public  funds.  Public 
officials  were,  from  that  time,  principally  chosen  from 
among  Christians ;  if  they  were  pagans,  they  were  not 
allowed  to  take  part  officially  in  the  ceremonies  of  their 
religion.^ 

These  were  the  immediate  measures.  Constantine 
lived  for  nearly  fourteen  years  longer.  Nothing  remained 
now  of  the  Tetrarchy.  He  was  henceforth  sole  master  of 
the  whole  empire.  His  religious  policy  showed  the  effects 
of  this.  The  idea  of  a  certain  equilibrium  between  the 
two  religions  is  often  attributed  to  him  ;  he  maintained 
them  both,  it  is  said,  holding  them  in  mutual  respect  for 
each  other,  and  dominating  both ;  being  supreme  pontiff 
of  paganism  by  the  very  fact  of  being  emperor,  he 
extended  his  cognizance  to  Christianity,  and  thus  presided 
over  the  whole  religious  system  of  his  empire.  This  way 
of  looking  at  things  does  not  appear  to  me  to  have  any 
foundation.  Even  over  the  pagan  cults  the  emperor  had  no 
direct  authority  :  his  title  of  Pontifex  Maxiinus  corresponds 
to  certain  defined  prerogatives,  sufficiently  limited,  as  a 
matter  of  fact,  and  in  no  way  capable,  in  any  case,  of  being 
extended  to  the  government  of  the  Church.  But,  apart 
from  his  sacerdotal  titles  and  his  religious  sphere,  the 
emperor  was,  for  Christians  as  for  pagans,  the  supreme 
lawgiver,  the  defender  of  public  order,  the  distributor  of 
favours.  It  was  not  an  unimportant  matter  whether  this 
enormous  power  leant  towards  one  side  or  the  other,  or 
maintained  its  equilibrium. 

There  may  have  been  equilibrium  at  the  beginning. 
It  was  a  great  advantage  for  the  Christians  to  find  them- 
selves in  the  same  position  as  before  the  persecution,  to  be 
certain  of  their  liberty,  and  even  of  indemnities  for  the 
losses  they  had  sustained.  At  first  they  had  no  idea  of 
claiming  any  more.  This  was  already  one  guarantee  for  the 
pagans,  and  another  was  furnished  them  by  their  numbers, 
which  in  many  of  the  western  provinces  greatly  exceeded 
^  Eusebius,  V.  C.  ii.  44. 


p.  74]     CONSTANTINE'S  DREAM  OF  UNITY  59 

those  of  the  Christians.  Finally,  Licinius,  who  had  never 
made  any  adhesion  to  Christianity,  represented,  as  joint- 
emperor,  the  followers  of  the  old  religious  traditions. 
From  this  resulted  a  certain  parity  between  the  two 
parties,  independent  of  any  political  design  and  even 
of  the  private  inclinations  of  the  two  imperial  rulers. 

I  do  not  know  what  were  the  real  convictions  of 
Licinius,  We  have  not  a  single  writing  of  his  which  can 
throw  any  light  upon  his  religious  feelings.  The  case  is 
otherwise  with  his  colleague.  Constantine  was  a  con- 
vinced Christian,  a  somewhat  lax  one,  perhaps,  and 
holding  a  rough-and-ready  theology.  The  Supreme 
Being,  the  suiiunus  Dens,  the  Emperor  of  Heaven,  the 
antithesis  to  the  pagan  pantheon,  complicated  and  confused 
as  it  was,  appealed  to  him  far  more  than  speculations  with 
regard  to  the  Incarnate  Word.  But  his  monotheism  was 
not  simply  a  philosophical  matter :  it  was  essentially  a 
religious  monotheism,  and  religious  in  a  Christian  way — 
a  monotheism  revealed  and  manifested  in  Jesus  Christ,  a 
monotheism  of  salvation,  the  benefits  resulting  from  which 
the  Church  preserved  and  propagated  by  its  teaching,  its 
discipline,  and  its  worship.  Penetrated  by  this  belief, 
Constantine  could  see  no  reason  why  it  should  not  be 
accessible  to  and  accepted  by  everyone.  Like  Diocletian 
and  so  many  others,  he  dreamed  of  religious  unity.  But, 
unlike  his  predecessors,  he  no  longer  deemed  it  possible 
with  paganism,  while  he  thought  that  it  could  be  realized 
with  the  religion  of  Christ.  Hence  arose  the  decided  and 
declared  favour  for  the  latter,  which  was  manifested  at 
once  and  steadily  increased,  and  which  was,  no  doubt,  the 
cause  of  many  conversions,  thus  modifying  the  numerical 
proportion  of  the  conflicting  parties.  Hence  arose  also,  to 
a  certain  extent,  the  pagan  reaction  under  Licinius  in 
the  eastern  provinces,  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  it  would 
have  been  to  his  interest  in  every  way  to  conciliate  the 
Christians. 

Victorious  in  the  final  struggle,  Constantine  had  no 
longer  any  rival  to  fear ;  in  Nicomedia  he  found  himself 
supported  by  a  Christian  opinion  far  more  powerful  than 


60     CONSTANTINE,  CHRISTIAN  EMPEROR     [ch.  ii. 

that  of  the  Latin  countries,  and  this  opinion,  alienated 
by  memories  of  Galerius  and  Maximin,  and  recently 
exasperated  by  the  brutalities  of  Licinius,  was  quite  ready 
to  support  the  Christian  emperor  in  measures  of  retalia- 
tion. Many  at  that  time  must  have  thought  and  said  that 
it  was  necessary  to  make  an  end  of  these  sacrifices,  so 
often  insisted  upon  with  violence,  of  these  altars  which  had 
witnessed  so  many  enforced  apostasies,  of  these  temples  of 
idols,  which  were  no  longer  taken  seriously  by  anyone, 
and  were  now  only  frequented  by  persons  who  engaged  in 
questionable  conferences  or  unhallowed  orgies.  Cessct 
superstitio  ! 

It  is  true  that  Constantine  promised  liberty  to  the 
pagans,  but  in  what  terms !  "  As  to  those  who  hold 
themselves  aloof  from  us,  let  them  keep  their  lying 
temples,  if  they  wish.  .  .  .  There  are  some,  it  is  said, 
who  pretend  that  the  use  of  the  temples  is  forbidden 
them.  .  .  .  Such  would  have  been  my  wish ;  but,  to  the 
detriment  of  the  public  welfare,  this  lamentable  error  still 
resists  too  strongly  in  certain  persons."^  The  liberty  thus 
reluctantly  granted  was  evidently,  in  the  mind  of 
Constantine,  only  a  precarious  and  temporary  liberty. 
During  the  years  which  followed,  various  partial  measures 
were  adopted.  Certain  temples,  notorious  for  the 
immorality  of  their  worship,  were  prohibited  and 
demolished ;  such  were  those  of  Aphaca,  in  the  Lebanon, 
of  Aegae  in  Cilicia,  of  Heliopolis  (Baalbek)  in  Phoenicia. 
Others,  notably  that  at  Delphi,  were  deprived  of  their 
beautiful  statues  in  bronze  and  marble,  and  of  their  other 
artistic  treasures ;  all  of  these  were  transported  to 
Constantinople,  and  served  for  the  embellishment  of  the 
new  capital.- 

It  appears  that  still  further  measures  were  taken. 
Eusebius^  speaks  of  a  law  which  forbade  the  erection  of 
idols,  the  practice  of  divination,  and  finally  all  sacrifices.* 

1  Eusebius,  V.  C.  ii.  56,  60. 

^   V.  C.  iii.  54-58  ;  cf.  the  Chronicle  of  St  Jerome,  a.  Abr.  2346 
(332) :  Dedicatur  Constatitinopolis  omnium  paene  urbium  ?iuditate. 
^    V.  C.  i.  45  ;  cf,  iv.  23,  25.  ^  /J-y'ire  pAjv  Oveiv  Kad6\ov  p.rjSeva. 


p.  77]  THE  FATE  OF  THE  TE:\rPLES  Gl 

In  341,  a  rescript  of  the  Emperor  Constans/  addressed  to 
the  vicarius  of  Italy,  refers  to  a  law  of  Constantine  against 
those  who  dared  "  to  offer  sacrifices."  As  we  have  not 
the  text  of  Constantine's  law,  it  would  be  difficult  to 
affirm  that  it  forbade  sacrifices  without  reserve  or  distinc- 
tion. Perhaps  it  was  a  question,  as  with  regard  to 
aruspicy,  of  ceremonies  forbidden  in  private  houses,  and 
tolerated  only  in  the  temples. 

Moreover,  in  many  places,  there  was  no  occasion  for 
the  government  to  take  any  steps :  the  populace,  con- 
verted en  viasse  to  Christianity,  themselves  broke  their 
idols  and  destroyed  their  temples.  This  is  what  took 
place  at  Antaradus  (Tortosa)  on  the  coast  of  Phoenicia; 
the  emperor  strongly  approved  of  this  resolution,  and 
rebuilt  the  town,  giving  it  his  own  name.-  The  port 
(Maiouma)  of  Gaza  did  the  same;  Constantine  gave  it 
the  name  of  his  sister  Constantia,  and  raised  it  to  the 
rank  of  city.^  To  renounce  the  ancient  gods  was  the 
surest  way  to  win  the  favours  of  the  sovereign.*  We  can 
easily  imagine  how  many  conversions,  individual  or  in 
masses,  were  the  natural  result  of  this.  Yet  there  were 
some  who  resisted.  In  spite  of  the  example  of  Maiouma, 
Gaza  preserved  its  temples  and  remained  pagan.  At 
Heliopolis,  after  having  destroyed  the  temple  of  Venus, 
the  emperor  set  to  work  to  convert  the  population.  But 
it  was  in  vain  that  he  multiplied  his  letters  of  exhortation, 
erected  a  great  church,  sent  a  whole  staff  of  clergy,  and 
organized  large  distributions  of  charity ;  it  was  labour 
lost :  no  one  was  converted  to  Christianity. 

Among  the  various  manifestations  of  imperial  favour, 
one  of  the  most  striking  was  the  official  honour  paid  to 
the  Holy  Places  mentioned  in  the  Gospels  and  the  Old 
Testament.      Pious    curiosity    had    long    been    directed 

'  Cod.  Theod.  xvi.  10,  i.  Cf.  St  Jerome,  Chron.^s..  Abr.  2347  (333) : 
Edicto  Constantini  tenipla  eversa  sunt. 

^  Eusebius,  V.  C.  iv.  39  ;  cf.  Theophanes,  p.  38  (De  Boor). 

3   V.  C.  iv.  38. 

*  It  was  exactly  the  same  situation  as  in  the  last  years  of  Maximin, 
save  that  the  imperial  favour  was  reserved  for  Christians  instead  of 
for  pagans. 


62     CONSTANTINE,  CHRISTIAN  EMPEROR     [en.  ii. 

towards  the  places  mentioned  in  the  Holy  Scriptures. 
Revolutions,  wars,  vicissitudes  of  every  kind,  had  never 
succeeded  in  effacing  the  memory  of  the  Temple  of  Israel ; 
notwithstanding  all  the  transformations  of  Jerusalem,  the 
Christians  still  knew  where  Jesus  had  been  crucified  and 
laid  in  the  tomb.  The  church  of  ^lia,  the  edifice  in 
which  Narcissus,  Alexander,  and  the  bishops  who  suc- 
ceeded them,  were  wont  to  assemble  the  faithful,  marked,  so 
it  was  believed,  the  site  of  the  house  where  the  Lord  had 
celebrated  the  Last  Supper,  and  where  the  disciples  had 
assembled  during  the  early  days  of  Christianity.  Other 
traditions  were  localized  around  the  city,  and  throughout 
the  whole  of  Palestine.  In  the  2nd  century,  Bishop 
Melito  came  from  Asia  into  the  land  of  the  Gospel  ^ ; 
later  on,  Alexander  of  Cappadocia  and  his  successor, 
Firmilian,  were  also  attracted  by  veneration  for  the  Holy 
Places.^  Julius  Africanus,  a  native  of  yElia,^  displayed 
an  extraordinary  zeal  in  seeking  out  Biblical  memories  in 
Palestine  and  elsewhere.^  It  was  the  same  with  Origen : 
among  other  monuments  of  the  Gospel,  he  mentions,  at 
Bethlehem,  the  grotto  of  the  Nativity.^  At  the  instigation 
of  his  friend,  Paulinus  of  Tyre,  Eusebius  devoted  a  whole 
series  of  works  to  Biblical  geography — a  translation  in 
Greek  of  the  names  of  peoples  mentioned  in  the  Hebrew 
Bible ;  a  description  of  Ancient  Palestine,  with  its  distri- 
bution into  tribes ;  a  plan  of  Jerusalem  and  of  the 
Temple ;  an  explanation  of  the  names  of  places  mentioned 
in  Holy  Scripture.^ 

1  There  is  a  letter  from  him  in  Eusebius,  H.  E.  iv.  26. 

2  H.  E.  vi.  1 1  ;  Jerome,  De  viris,  54. 

^  Grenfell  and  Hunt,  Oxyrhynchus  Papyri^  n.  412. 

"^  Vol.  I.,  p.  333.  ^  In  Johannem^  vi.  24  ;  Contra  Celsum,  i.  51. 

^  This  last  part  only  has  been  preserved,  in  Greek  as  well  as  in  a 
Latin  recension  executed  by  St  Jerome  (See  the  edition  of  Kloster- 
mann  in  the  third  volume  of  the  "  Eusebius  "  published  by  the  Berlin 
Academy).  The  vi^orks  of  Eusebius  must  have  served  as  a  basis  for 
the  curious  map  of  Palestine,  with  a  plan  of  Jerusalem,  which  was 
discovered  on  a  mosaic  pavement  at  Medaba,  beyond  Jordan 
{Si&venson,  Niiovo  Biillctino,  1897,  p.  45  ;  Schulten,  "  Die  Mosaikkarte 
von  Madaba,"  in  the  Abhandlungen  of  the  Society  of  Sciences  at 
Gottingen,  Phil. -hist.,  new  series,  vol.  iv.  (1900). 


p.  79-SO]  THE  BORDEAUX  PILGRIM  G3 

The  appearance  of  such  works  had  already  shown  the 
interest  awakened  by  the  Holy  Places.  Pilgrimages,  which 
had,  no  doubt,  begun  before  the  Great  Persecution,^  were 
resumed  as  soon  as  peace  was  restored.  About  the  year 
333j  3.  pilgrim  from  far-off  Gaul  compiled,  from  his 
notes  of  his  journey,  a  complete  itinerary,  outward  and 
homeward,  from  Bordeaux  to  Jerusalem,  one  of  the  most 
precious  documents  of  Roman  geography.  When  he 
arrived  in  Palestine,  he  took  note  there  of  all  the  sacred 
memories  pointed  out  to  him  in  the  different  localities. 
He  is  the  most  ancient  witness  of  the  magnificent  buildings 
by  which  the  piety  of  Constantine  and  his  family  had 
enriched  the  Holy  Places  at  that  time. 

The  colony  of  .^lia  Capitolina,  founded  by  Hadrian  on 
the  site  of  the  ancient  Jerusalem,  consisted  of-  two  distinct 
parts,  separated  by  a  valley.  On  the  east,  upon  enormous 
foundations,  extended  an  oblong,  rectangular  platform, 
surrounded  by  porticoes ;  this  comprised  the  site  of  the 
ancient  Temple,  upon  which  now  stood  the  Capitol 
(rpiKajuapov)  dedicated,  as  all  the  provincial  Capitols  were, 
to  the  three  Roman  divinities,  Jupiter,  Juno,  and  Minerva. 
On  the  other  side  of  the  valley,  upon  the  western  hill,  the 
town,  properly-so-called,  underwent  a  development  almost 
exactly  parallel  to  the  buildings  of  the  Temple.  Accord- 
ing to  custom,  a  wide  street,  bordered  by  colonnades, 
traversed  it  from  one  end  to  the  other ;  at  its  extremities 
were  the  public  buildings.  About  the  middle,  on  the 
western  side,  this  colonnade  was  broken  to  give  access  to 
a  platform  upon  which  was  erected  the  temple  of  Venus. 
According  to  tradition,  this  platform  had  been  constructed 
immediately  over  the  place  consecrated  by  the  Crucifixion 
of  the  Saviour  and  by  His  tomb.  The  Bishop  of  yElia, 
Macarius,  who   was   present   at    the    Council   of    Nic^a, 

^  Observe  that  Eusebius,  in  his  Demonstratio  Evangelica  (vi.  i8), 
written  before  Constantine  came  to  the  East,  speaks  of  Christian 
pilgrims,  who  came  from  all  parts  of  the  world  to  pray  at  the  cave  on 
the  Mount  of  Olives,  near  which  had  taken  place  the  Ascension  of  the 
Saviour. 

2  With  regard  to  the  topography  of  Jerusalem,  I  refer  to  the 
excellent  articles  of  P.  Germer-Durand  in  the  Echos  cfOrient,  1903-4. 


64    CONSTANTINE,  CHRISTIAN  EMPEROR     [ch.  it. 

obtained  from  the  emperor  the  necessary  authorization  to 
make  excavations.  The  buildings  of  the  temple  were 
demolished,  as  well  as  the  platform  which  supported 
them ;  the  earth,  which  had  been  used  to  level  the  ground, 
was  removed  ;  and  finally,  a  tomb  hollowed  in  the  rock 
was  brought  to  light  again :  it  was  recognized  as  that 
which  they  were  seeking.^  The  exact  spot  of  the 
Crucifixion  and  even  the  Saviour's  Cross  were  also 
identified."  The  emperor,  informed  of  these  discoveries, 
gave  orders  for  the  erection  of  a  monument  in  this  place, 
which  should  be  worthy  of  such  memories.  Upon  the 
enlarged  site  of  the  temple  of  Venus  arose  first  an 
immense  basilica,  in  front  of  which  was  a  vestibule ;  its 
fagade   looked  towards   the    East.^      Behind  this  came  a 

^  In  the  time  of  Jesus,  Golgotha  and  the  tomb  were  outside  the 
city  ;  shortly  afterwards,  the  boundaries  of  the  city  having  been  re- 
arranged by  Herod  Agrippa,  they  were  included  in  it ;  they  were  also 
inside  the  new  enclosure  of  ^lia,  which,  on  this  side,  appears  to  have 
coincided  to  a  considerable  extent  with  that  of  Herod  Agrippa.  With 
regard  to  questions  of  topography  and  history  relating  to  these  sacred 
sites,  see,  amongst  others,  the  work  of  Major-General  Sir  C.  Wilson, 
Golgotha  and  the  Holy  Sepulchre,  London,  1906.  I  am  less  doubtful 
than  he  is  about  the  value  of  the  tradition. 

2  Eusebius,  who  in  his  Lije  of  Constantine  describes  minutely  the 
excavations  of  Macarius,  says  not  a  word  of  the  True  Cross.  Yet  the 
oratory  of  the  Cross  was  then  already  in  existence  ;  he  had  himself 
mentioned  it  in  his  discourse  of  the  Tricennalia  {De  laudibns  Con- 
stantini,  c.  9,  p.  221,  Schwartz),  as  well  as  the  two  other  parts  of  the 
monument  :  oIkov  evKr-qpiov  Trafj-fieyeOri  (the  basilica),  vewv  T€  ayiou  t^ 
auTrjpiqj  a-r)jxeli{)  (the  oratory  of  the  Cross),  ixvrjud  re  (the  Holy  Sepulchre). 
Observe  that  even  here  he  speaks  of  the  Cross  as  a  sign,  not  as  a 
relic,  (TTifxe'iu)  not  ^vKif.  Perhaps  he  had  some  doubt  upon  the  identity 
of  the  object.  But  whatever  may  have  been  his  scruples,  the  wood  of 
the  Cross  was  soon  publicly  venerated  in  Jerusalem,  and  fragments 
of  it  were  detached  and  dispersed  by  devotion  throughout  the  whole 
world.  This  is  attested  about  347,  twenty  years  after  the  discovery, 
by  the  Catecheses  of  St  Cyril,  delivered  upon  the  very  spot  (iv.  10  ; 
X.  19  ;  xiii.  4)  ;  an  inscription  of  the  year  359  found  at  Tixter,  in  the 
neighbourhood  of  Setif  in  Mauritania,  mentions,  in  an  enumeration  of 
relics,  a  fragment  de  ligno  cruets  {Melanges  de  VEcole  de  Rotne, 
vol.  X.,  p.  441).     Thenceforward,  similar  testimonies  abound. 

•^  With  regard  to  this  orientation,  see  Clermont-Ganneau,  in  the 
Compte-rendus  de  PAcadcmie  des  Inscriptions,  1897,  p.  552. 


p.  82]     SITES  AT  JERUSALEM  AND  HEBRON        65 

great  square  court,  ornamented  with  porticoes,  where,  in  a 
special  shrine,  the  relic  of  the  Cross  was  preserved  ;  beyond 
this  court,  towards  the  west,  was  the  holy  tomb,  contained 
in  a  building  of  circular  form  {Anastasis). 

In  spite  of  her  great  age,  the  Empress  Helena,  attracted 
by  a  pious  curiosity,  undertook  the  pilgrimage  to  Palestine. 
We  can  imagine  her  interest  in  her  son's  buildings.  She 
herself  began  to  search  for  other  holy  places.  The  grotto  at 
Bethlehem,  and  another  grotto  upon  the  Mount  of  Olives, 
where,  it  was  said,  the  Lord  had  often  conversed  with  His 
disciples  ^  and  had  taken  leave  of  them  just  before  His 
Ascension,  were  also  enclosed  in  splendid  basilicas. 

Following  the  example  of  the  emperor's  mother,  his 
mother-in-law  also,  Eutropia,-  widow  of  Maximian  Her- 
culius,  and  mother  of  Maxentius  and  Fausta,  was 
distinguished  by  her  devotion  to  the  Holy  Places.  She 
was  especially  interested  in  the  monuments  of  Hebron. 
There  were  to  be  found  the  mysterious  tombs  of  the 
patriarchs,  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob,  with  their  wives, 
Sarah,  Rebecca,  and  Leah.  At  some  distance  from  the 
town,  on  the  road  to  Jerusalem,  was  shown  the  well,  dug  by 
the  Father  of  the  Faithful,  and  also  an  enormous  terebinth, 
so  old  that  it  was  deemed  to  go  back  to  the  creation  of  the 
world.^  It  was,  according  to  the  legend,  the  famous  oak 
of  Mamre,  under  which  Abraham  had  received  the  visit  of 
the  three  heavenly  messengers,  one  of  whom  was  none 
other  than  the  Divine  Word.  This  old  tree  was  the  object 
of  universal  veneration.  Every  summer  festivals  were 
celebrated  there,  and  a  great  fair  was  held :  Jews, 
Christians,  and  pagans  also,  came  thither  in  crowds.  It 
was  at  this  fair  that,  in  the  reign  of  Hadrian,  the  greater 
part  of  the  prisoners  after  the  Jewish  insurrection  were 
sold,*  a  bitter  remembrance,  which  did  not,  however,  over- 

^  Supra,  page  63,  note  i. 

-  Eutropia  was  mother-in-law  of  Constantius  Chlorus,  as  well  as 
of  Constantine.  To  the  first,  she  had  given  her  daughter  Theodora, 
the  issue  of  a  former  marriage  ;  to  the  second,  Fausta,  daughter  of 
Maximian. 

^  Josephus,  Bell.  Jiid.  iv.  9,  7  ;  Chronicon  Paschale,  Olymp.  224,  3. 

*  St  Jerome,  in  Jeretn.  xxxi.  15  ;  in  Zachar.  xi.  5. 

II  E 


66     CONSTANTINE,  CHRISTIAN  EMPEROR     [cii.  ii. 

shadow  that  of  the  great  patriarch.  Eutropia  discovered 
that  near  the  sacred  terebinth  were  idols  and  a  heathen 
altar ;  she  informed  Constantine  of  this,  and  he  gave  the 
necessary  orders  to  the  bishops  of  Palestine  and  Phoenicia, 
that  these  relics  of  paganism  should  be  replaced  by  a 
church.^ 

At  Antioch  also,  at  Nicomedia,  and  in  many  other 
towns,  new  churches  were  erected — imposing  monuments 
of  imperial  favour.  At  Antioch,  the  principal  Christian 
place  of  worship  was  in  the  old  part  of  the  city  ^ ;  it  was 
believed  that  this  old  church^  dated  from  the  time  of 
the  Apostles.  Constantine  constructed  another,  octagonal 
in  form,  with  a  high  cupola  dominating  an  immense  court 
surrounded  by  porticoes.'* 

But  of  all  the  foundations  of  Constantine,  the  most 
important,  alike  in  itself  and  in  its  consequences,  was 
that  of  Constantinople.  A  thousand  years  before,  some 
Greek  colonists,  coming,  it  was  said,  from  Megara,  had 
discovered,  near  the  opening  of  the  Bosphorus  into  the 
Propontis,  the  place  where  the  deep  cleft  opens  which  has 
ever  since  been  called  the  Golden  Horn.  Upon  the 
actual  spot  where  the  Seraglio  now  stands,  they  traced 
out  the  place  for  a  settlement,  which  they  called 
Byzantium,  from  the  name  of  a  Thracian  hero,  no  doubt 
honoured  in  that  locality.  It  was  an  admirable  situation, 
on  a  promontory  easily  fortified,  surrounded  on  all  sides 
by  the  'deep  sea,  at  the  mouth  of  the  Euxine,  upon  one 
of  the  most  important  commercial  highways  of  the 
ancient  world !  ^     Then  began  a  long  history  of  negotia- 

1  Eusebius,  V.  C.  iii.  51-53. 

'■^  TTjv    a.iroCToKiK7}v    €KK\7]<Tiav    Trjv    ev    tj}    KoKovfxivrj    TloKaiq^   SiaKeifxevriv 

(Theodoret,  J7.  E.  ii.  27). 

^  After  the  construction  of  Constantine's  basilica,  the  title  of 
Old,  Palaea  (TraXaid),  was  transferred  from  that  part  of  the  city  to 
the  building  itself,  the  ancient  church  (Ath.   Totn.  ad  Anf.  c.  3). 

*  Eusebius  V.  C.  iii.  50.     The  church  was  not  dedicated  until  341. 

''  Some  years  before  Byzantium,  Chalcedon  had  been  founded  on 
the  other  side  of  the  Bosphorus,  but  in  a  position  much  less  advan- 
tageous. Its  founders  were  ridiculed  by  the  whole  ancient  world  for 
not  having  preferred  the  situation  of  Byzantium. 


p.  84-5]       CONSTANTINE  AND  BYZANTIUM  67 

tions  and  wars,  the  episodes  of  which  were  mixed  up 
with  the  ordinary  Hfe  of  the  Greek  world,  at  the  time 
of  its  independence,  then  under  the  Macedonian  kings, 
and  finally  under  the  empire  of  Rome.  Severus,  at  war 
with  Niger,  had  besieged  Byzantium  for  three  years, 
and  then,  having  chastised  it,  had  ended  by  reconstructing 
and  enlarging  it.  Even  in  the  recent  war  it  had  played 
its  part ;  it  had  been  necessary  to  oust  Licinius  from  it. 
Constantine  resolved  to  transfer  to  it  the  seat  of  the 
eastern  empire,  to  make  it  a  city  really  his  own  ;  for  he 
would  found  it  afresh,  and  it  should  bear  his  name,  and, 
at  the  same  time,  it  should  be  a  city  without  a  rival, 
a  second  sanctuary  of  the  Roman  power,  a  new  Rome. 
The  Tetrarchy  had  only  possessed  capitals  of  the  second 
rank  :  Nicomedia,  Sirmium,  Milan,  Treves.  Constantinople 
should  be  quite  another  thing,  and  this  sovereign  city 
should  be  a  Christian  capital.^  The  emperor  had  seen 
Rome  in  312;  he  had  returned  there  in  315  for  his 
Decennalia,  in  326  for  his  Vicennalia.  He  must  have 
discovered  that  the  old  cults  were  still  too  full  of  life 
there  to  be  easily  uprooted  or  set  aside.  Upon  the 
Bosphorus  his  hands  would  be  free. 

Byzantium  had  already  possessed  for  a  long  time  a 
Christian  colony.  It  was  from  there  that  the  famous 
heresiarch,  Theodotus,-  came  to  Rome  towards  the  end 
of  the  2nd  century.  According  to  somewhat  vague 
traditions,  the  Christian  settlements  had  been  at  first  in 
the  outskirts  of  the  city,  on  the  eastern  shore  of  the 
Golden  Horn.'^  Later  on,  these  were  transferred  to  the 
city ;  at  the  beginning  of  the  4th  century  there  was 
a   church    in   those   parts   called    the   Church   of  Peace  ^ 

'  According  to  accounts  collected  by  Zosimus  (ii.  30)  and 
Sozomen  (ii.  3),  he  had  first  thought  of  the  site  of  Troy.  This  is 
very  improbable.  2  See  Vol.  I.,  p.  217. 

^  Socrates,  vii.  25,  26  ;  cf.  Pseudo-Dorotheus  in  Lequien,  Oriens 
christianus,  vol.  i.,  p.  198  ;  churches  of  Argyropolis  (Foundoukly), 
of  Elea  (Pera),  of  Sycae  (Galata). 

^  Socrates,  i.  16  ;  ii.  16.  The  church  of  Hippo  also  bore  the  name 
of  Church  of  Peace  ;  the  Council  of  Hippo,  in  393,  assembled  /// 
secretario  busilicae  Facts. 


68       CONSTANTINE,  CHRISTIAN  EMPEROR    [cii.  ii. 

(Irene,  St    Irene),   which  was  no  doubt  the  seat  of  the 
first  bishops,  Metrophanes  and  Alexander.^ 

The  Church  of  Irene  was  near  the  market-place  of 
Byzantium  {agora),  not  far  from  which  rose  two  important 
buildings  of  Severus,  the  baths  of  Zeuxippus  and  the 
Hippodrome ;  the  latter  had  remained  unfinished. 
Constantine  carried  the  market  farther  west,^  finished 
the  Hippodrome,  restored  the  baths,  and,  between  the 
two,  began  the  construction  of  his  imperial  palace,  and  of 
another  palace  for  the  new  senate.  The  Church  of  Irene 
was  restored  at  first  and  enlarged ;  but  it  was  soon  found 
insufficient,  and  another  church  was  commenced,  at  a 
short  distance,  the  Church  of  the  Wisdom  (So^/a,  St 
Sophia).  St  Sophia,  the  Senate,  the  Palace,  and  the 
Hippodrome  enclosed  a  vast  square,  the  Forum  of 
Augustus,  in  which,  as  at  Rome,  a  milestone  of  gold  was 
erected.  A  long  colonnade,  which  also  dated  from  the 
time  of  Severus,  led  to  the  new  market-place,  the  Forum 
of  Constantine,  near  the  principal  gate  of  the  enclosure 
of  Severus.  Beyond  extended  the  new  quarters,  traversed 
by  two  great  roads,  one  of  which,  parallel  with  the  sea, 
followed  westward  the  line  of  the  old  Via  Egnatia,  and 
ended  in  the  Constantinian  enclosure,  at  the  Golden 
Gate ;  the  other,  more  to  the  north,  ran  in  the  direction 
of  the  gate  of  Adrianople.  Near  the  latter,  and  within 
it,  the  emperor  built  a  large  church  in  honour  of  the 
Apostles^;  it  was  in  the  form  of  a  cross,  and  rose  in 
the  midst  of  a  court  surrounded  by  colonnades.  Eusebius, 
who   saw   it   when   quite   new,  was    much  struck    by  the 

'  These  are  the  bishops  whose  names  appear  at  the  head  of 
the  most  ancient  episcopal  Hsts  ;  other  catalogues  are  suspect, 
especially  that  of  the  Pseudo-Dorotheus,  which  gives  Metrophanes 
twenty-one  predecessors.  There  is  every  appearance  that  before 
Metrophanes  the  Christians  of  Byzantium  were  attached  to  the  Church 
of  Perinthus-Heraclea.  The  union  of  two  towns  under  one  bishop 
lasted  for  a  long  time  in  these  parts  (Vol.  I.,  p.  382). 

^  The  Forum  of  Constantine :  his  statue  towered  from  the 
summit  of  an  enormous  column,  the  ruins  of  which  still  remain 
(the  Burnt  Column). 

3  The  mosque  Mohammedieh  stands  now  upon  this  same  site. 


r.  87]  CHURCHES  IN  BYZANTIUM  69 

reflection  of  the  sun  upon  its  cupola  of  bronze.  In  the 
same  court  was  the  imperial  mausoleum,  Constantine 
had  placed  there  twelve  representative  tombs,  deemed 
to  be  those  of  the  Twelve  Apostles ;  his  own  sarcophagus 
occupied  the  centre.^ 

Besides  these  edifices,  Eusebius-  mentions  other 
churches,  both  within  and  without  the  city ;  these  were 
dedicated  to  the  martyrs.  He  says  also  that,  in  this 
city  to  which  he  was  giving  his  own  name,  Constantine 
would  not  suffer  any  idols  in  the  temples,  or  any  sacrifices 
upon  the  altars.^  But  "  idols "  were  not  wanting  in  the 
public  squares  and  elsewhere.  Many  works  of  art  and 
celebrated  statues,  the  ornaments  of  temples  and  of  cities, 
were  brought  to  Constantinople  at  this  time  and  employed 
in  its  decoration.*  Some  of  them  still  remain  ;  after  so 
many  centuries  and  revolutions,  there  is  still  to  be  seen, 
upon  the  site  of  the  Hippodrome,  the  base  of  the 
celebrated  tripod  consecrated  at  Delphi  by  the  Greek 
cities  in  thanksgiving  for  their  victory  at  Platsea. 

On  May  11,330,  the  dedication  of  the  new  city  was 
celebrated  with  great  pomp.  Great  expedition  was  shown 
in  executing  the  emperor's  orders ;  in  fact,  there  was  too 
great  haste ;  for  these  hasty  erections  lasted  but  a 
short  time.  They  were  replaced  by  others,  for  the  city 
"  guarded  by  God " ''  was  not  destined  to  an  ephemeral 
existence.  Energetic  measures  had  been  adopted  from 
the  outset  to  attract  the  populace  to  it,  by  privileges, 
obligations  of  residence,  official  supplies  of  food,  and 
gratuitous  distribution  of  alms.      Yet  time  was  necessary 

'  V.  C.  iv.  58-60.  Constantine,  in  the  Greek  Church,  is  a  saint  ; 
he  is  given  the  title  of  hairSaroXo?,  "equal  to  the  Apostles." 

2   V.  C.  iii.  48. 

^  This  is  perhaps  an  exaggeration,  or  rather  applicable  only  to 
the  new  city,  the  pagan  worship  being  possibly  tolerated  in  the 
ancient  parts. 

■*  Upon  this  subject,  see  Allard,  L'arf  paien  sous  les  empereurs 
chr/tiens  (Paris  :  1879),  p.  173.  The  Scriptores  oris^nian  Constantino- 
politanim  have  been  brought  together  by  Dr  Th.  Preger,  in  the 
little  Teubner  Collection,  1901  (ist  part). 

•'  Oeo(pii\aKT09. 


70       CONSTANTINE,  CHRISTIAN  EMPEROR    [ch.  ii. 

before  the  new  Rome  could  attain  the  greatness  of  the 
old.^  In  this,  as  in  other  things,  Constantine  had  opened 
the  way,  leaving  to  his  successors  the  care  of  continuing 
his  task.  In  this  they  succeeded.  The  original  enclosure 
of  Constantine  was  filled  ;  it  became  necessary  to  construct 
another,  much  larger.  The  new  Rome  was  developed,  to 
confront,  to  the  detriment,  and  at  the  expense  of  the 
ancient  one.  It  furnished  a  magnificent  centre  of 
authority  and  an  invincible  fortress  to  the  Roman  power, 
then  broken  in  the  West.  Behind  its  walls,  the  dynasties 
of  the  Middle  Ages  continued  the  succession  of  the 
Csesars,  and  maintained  against  barbarian  Slavs  and 
Arabian  fanaticism,  the  tradition  of  the  old  mistress  of 
the  world,  a  tradition  which  may  have  been  weakened 
and  confused  to  any  extent,  but  which  was  a  tradition  all 
the  same.  From  the  religious  point  of  view,  it  resisted 
Islamism  for  eight  centuries,  and  propagated  the  Gospel 
among  the  invaders  who  attacked  it  from  the  Ural  and 
the  Danube.  Unfortunately,  from  its  very  importance,  it 
early  became  a  grave  menace  to  Christian  unity.  The 
Hellenized  Rome  of  the  Bosphorus  could  never  succeed 
in  coming  to  an  understanding  with  the  old  Rome,  which 
remained,  or  had  become  once  more,  Latin.  History  is 
filled  with  the  accounts  of  their  conflicts  ;  their  separation, 
which  seems  beyond  all  remedy,  is  one  of  the  gravest 
disasters  which  has  ever  befallen  the  religion  of  the 
Gospel. 

After  the  ceremonies  of  the  dedication,  the  emperor  took 
up  his  residence  in  Constantinople,  and  scarcely  ever  left 
it  again.  After  the  Festival  of  Easter,  in  the  year  337, 
he  experienced  certain  ailments  for  which  he  tried  a 
course  of  hot  baths  ;  afterwards,  he  visited  Helenopolis, 
where  the  memory  of  his  mother  was  preserved  as  well 
as  the  cult  of  the  martyr  Lucian.  Here  his  malady 
assumed  such  a  serious  form  that  he  feared  his  end  was 
approaching. 

1  According  to  Julian,  Orat.  i.  8,  Constantinople  as  much 
surpassed    all    other   cities   as   it   was    itself  surpassed   by    Rome : 

TOffovTui  tQ>v  dWui'  a-rraauiv  /j,ei^ova  Stroi  tt}?  'Vib/J.i]S  eXaTTOvffdaL  ooku. 


p.  90]  DEATPI  OF  CONSTANTINE  71 

He  removed  to  the  imperial  villa  of  Achyron,  near 
Nicomedia,  and,  as  he  had  not  yet  received  Baptism,  he 
asked  the  bishops  to  give  it  to  him.  The  ceremony  was 
presided  over  by  the  bishop  of  the  place,  Eusebius,  a 
personage  of  somewhat  grievous  notoriety,  as  we  shall  soon 
see.^  Constantine  died  on  May  22.  His  three  surviving 
sons  were  all  absent;  the  one  nearest  to  him,  Constantius, 
came  to  superintend  his  funeral,  and  carried  his  body  to 
the  Apostoleion  at  Constantinople.  The  succession  was 
not  decided  without  some  difficulty ;  affairs  of  State  were 
still  conducted  in  the  name  of  the  deceased  emperor 
until  September  9,  337,  on  which  day  his  three  sons  were 
proclaimed  Augusti. 

Constantine  has  been,  and  still  is,  the  subject  of  various 
estimates.  The  main  fact  of  his  reign,  the  conversion  of 
the  emperor  and  the  empire  to  Christianity,  has  procured 
for  him  the  enthusiasm  of  some,  and  the  severity  of  others  ; 
for  it  is  in  the  nature  of  men  that  their  present  passions 
display  their  fierceness  even  in  their  manner  of  represent- 
ing ancient  times.  Unfortunately  for  Constantine,  there 
was  too  much  bloodshed  in  his  history.  We  might  pass 
over  the  death  of  Maximian  and  of  Licinius,  who  were 
restless  and  inconvenient  rivals ;  but  his  son  Crispus,  and 
the  son  of  Licinius,  and  his  wife  Fausta  !  We  have  very 
little  information  with  regard  to  these  horrible  affairs. 
Constantine  wished  that  the  details  of  them  should  be 
unknown  ;  perhaps,  by  this  imposed  silence,  he  may  have 
suppressed  extenuating  explanations.  But,  whatever  may 
be  the  truth  with  regard  to  these  domestic  tragedies,  it 
is  not  only  the  Church  which  has  reason  to  rejoice  in  the 
first  Christian  emperor :  the  Empire  also  benefited  under 
his  government.  So  long  as  he  lived,  he  secured  to  it 
religious  peace,  a  wise  administration,  the  safety  of  the 
frontiers,  and  the  respect  of  neighbouring  nations.  It  was 
no  inconsiderable  achievement. 

1  Eusebius,  V.  C.  iv.  60-64.     Cf.  Jerome,  C/iron.,  a.  Abr.  2353. 


CHAPTER   III 

THE   SCHISMS    RESULTING   FROM   THE    PERSECUTION 

Pope  Marcellinus  and  his  memory.  Disturbances  at  Rome  with 
regard  to  apostates  :  Marcellus,  Eusebius.  Egyptian  quarrels  : 
rupture  between  Bishops  Peter  and  Meletius.  The  Meletian 
schism.  Origins  of  the  Donatist  schism.  Council  of  Cirta. 
Mensurius  and  Cascilian,  Bishops  of  Carthage.  Schism  against 
Cascilian  :  Majorinus.  Intervention  of  the  Emperor.  Councils 
of  Rome  and  of  Aries.  Imperial  arbitration.  Resistance  of  the 
Donatists  :  organization  of  the  schism. 

I.   The  Roman  Schism. 

At  the  time  when  the  persecution  broke  out,  the 
Roman  Church  had  had  at  its  head,  for  nearly  seven  years, 
Bishop  Marcellinus.^  The  edict  of  confiscation  of  ecclesi- 
astical property,  whether  real  or  personal,  was  applied 
without  difficulty  in  Rome.  The  Christian  community 
there  was  so  considerable,  and  so  well  known,  that  any 
kind  of  disguise  would  have  been  not  only  dangerous  but 
impossible.  The  formal  records  regarding  this  seizure 
were  preserved  for  a  long  time,  thanks  to  the  belief  of 
the  Donatists  that  they  could  find  weapons  in  them 
against  their  adversaries.  Certain  clerics  were  called 
upon  to  make  the  surrender  of  the  things  confiscated — 
there  is  no  mention  of  the  Holy  Scriptures — and,  when  this 
case  of  conscience  presented  itself  in  Africa,  great  stress 
was  laid  upon  their  share  in  the  transaction.  Then  came 
the  order  to  arrest  the  members  of  the  clergy  :  it  appears 

'  His  name  is  mentioned  in  an  inscription  of  the  cemetery  of 
Callistus,  anterior  to  the  persecution.  (De  Rossi,  Inscriptiones 
christiafiae,  vol.  i.,  p.  cxv.) 

72 


p.  93]      THE  CASE  OF  POPE  MARCELLINUS         73 

that  they  must  have  evaded  a  too  severe  application  of 
this  order.  Only  one  priest,  Marcellinus,  and  one  exorcist, 
Peter,  are  mentioned  as  having  died  at  this  time.  The 
bishop  escaped  the  first  measures  of  severity,  as  did  those 
of  Carthage,  Alexandria,  and  Antioch  ;  but  he  died  on 
October  24,  304,  at  the  moment  when  Diocletian  arrived 
in  Rome,  and  when  the  persecution  was  everywhere  raging 
in  its  full  severity. 

For  a  person  of  such  importance,  it  was  sufficiently 
unfortunate,  at  such  a  time,  to  die  in  his  bed.  The  memory 
of  Marcellinus  was  much  ill-treated  by  the  Donatists 
during  the  course  of  the  4th  century.  They  included 
him  in  the  number  of  the  traditores  without  bringing 
forward  any  very  clear  proofs.  Several  of  them  ^  went 
farther,  and  charged  him  with  a  much  more  serious  offence  : 
that  he  had  offered  incense  upon  pagan  altars.  This  last 
accusation  seems  to  have  been  admitted  in  Rome,  at 
least  by  the  general  public,  towards  the  end  of  the  5th 
century.  We  have  no  other  documents  respecting  it  than 
two  apocryphal  ones  :  the  spurious  Council  of  Sinuessa,  a 
composition  a  little  later  than  the  year  501,  and  the  Life 
of  Marcellinus  in  the  Liber  Pontificals.  These  two  docu- 
ments agree  in  representing  Marcellinus  as  having  reha- 
bilitated himself  According  to  the  council,  a  numerous 
assemblage  of  bishops  had  established  his  fault  and  his 
repentance,  but  had  refused  to  condemn  the  sovereign 
bishop;  according  to  the  legend  of  the  Liber  Pontificalis, 
the  erring  Pope,  being  once  more  arrested  by  his  perse- 
cutors, showed  more  courage,  and  shed  his  blood  for  the 
Faith. 

Taken  by  themselves  and  reduced  to  their  real  value, 
such  testimonies  would  not  be  very  compromising.  There 
was  in  Rome,  during  the  4th  century,  a  colony  of 
Donatists,  who  may  well  have  spread  abroad  among  the 
people  the  idea  of  a  Pope  unfaithful  to  his  duties  at  a 
time  of  persecution,  an  idea  which  may  have  fructified, 
later  on,  in  the  hands  of  those  fabricators  of  false  legends 
and  false  councils,  who  were  so  active  at  the  beginning 

'  Aug.,  Contra  littcras  Petiliani,  ii.  202  ;  De  unico  baptismo,  27. 


74  THE  SCHISMS  [ch.  hi. 

of  the  6th  century.  But  we  must  take  account  of  a  fact, 
serious  in  another  way  because  it  throws  light,  not  upon 
popular  rumours,  but  upon  the  opinions  of  the  superior 
clergy  in  Rome,  and  that  immediately  after  the  persecution. 
The  Roman  Church  in  the  time  of  Constantine  possessed 
a  calendar  in  which  were  marked  the  anniversaries  of  the 
Popes  and  of  the  principal  martyrs.  From  the  time  of 
Fabian  (250)  until  that  of  Mark  (335),  all  the  Popes 
appear  there,  with  only  one  exception,  that  of  Marcellinus. 
Such  an  omission,^  which  cannot  be  accounted  for  by  any 
errors  in  copying  or  other  excuses  of  the  same  kind, 
cannot  have  been  without  reasons.  In  his  Ecclesiastical 
History  Eusebius  confines  himself  to  saying  that,  when 
the  persecution  began,  Marcellinus  was  bishop ;  it  is  a 
simple  chronological  note.  He  is,  otherwise,  very  little 
informed  of  what  was  taking  place  in  Rome  in  his  own 
time.  In  fact,  something  unpleasant  must  have  happened  ; 
but  we  do  not  know  exactly  what  it  was. 

Disorganized  by  the  persecution,  and  saddened  by  the 
death  of  its  bishop,  the  Roman  Church  passed  through  a 
crisis  of  considerable  danger,  less,  perhaps,  on  account  of 
the  persecution  than  of  the  internal  dissensions  which 
followed  it.  The  violence  of  the  persecution  appears  to 
have  diminished  greatly  after  the  abdication  of  Diocletian  ; 
when  Maxentius  was  proclaimed  emperor,  it  must  have 
ceased  altogether.'^  Yet  the  Christians  in  Rome  were  in 
no  hurry  to  elect  a  new  bishop.  Maxentius  was  a  usurper, 
a  rebel.  His  good-will  did  not  guarantee  that  of  Galerius, 
who  was  then  in  open  hostility  against  him  and  might  at 
any  moment  become  once  more  master  of  the  situation. 
Nevertheless,  when,  after  the  death  of  Severus,  Galerius 
had  been  driven  back  from  Rome,  and  when  Maxentius, 

^  Marcellinus  is  only  omitted  in  the  calendar  ;  the  Philocalian 
collection,  which  has  preserved  the  calendar  for  us,  contains  a 
catalogue  of  the  Popes,  in  which  Marcellinus  appears  in  his  proper 
place. 

2  Eusebius,  H.  E.  viii.  14,  goes  so  far  as  to  say  that  at  the  outset 
he  pretended  to  be  a  Christian  "to  please  the  Roman  people";  he 
adds,  what  is  more  probable,  that  Maxentius  commanded  his  subjects  to 

moderate  the  persecution  :    Toe  /lOTct  Xpiortavcoi'  a.viiva.i  irpoaTaTTei  OMyixov. 


i>.  95  n]  rOl'E  MARCEIJATS  75 

then  on  fairly  good  terms  with  Constantinc,  appeared  to 
have  established  his  power,  it  was  decided  to  incur  the 
risk  of  the  election.  Towards  the  end  of  June  308, 
Marcellus  was  enthroned  as  Pope,  after  a  vacancy  of  nearly 
four  years. 

He  found  that  the  question  of  the  apostates  had 
already  come  to  the  front,  and  was  being  discussed.^  The 
danger  over,  the  apostates  were  returning  to  the  Church, 
and  claiming  even  to  enter  it  without  conditions  ;  while 
the  authorities,  the  new  Pope  at  their  head,  faithful  to 
traditional  principles,  insisted  that  they  should  submit  to 
penitential  expiation.  The  number  of  apostates  was  legion, 
and  the  conflict  which  they  let  loose  degenerated  into  a 
kind  of  sedition.  From  the  temporary  edifices  where 
Christian  assemblies  were  held,  the  churches  not  having 
as  yet  been  given  back,  the  dispute  soon  spread  into  the 
street,  and  public  order  was  endangered.  The  govern- 
ment of  Maxentius  intervened,  and,  on  the  accusation  of 
an  apostate,'-  Marcellus  was  adjudged  responsible  for  the 
disorder  and  banished  from  Rome. 

He  was  succeeded,  either  in  the  same  year  (309),  or  in 
the  year  following  (310),  by  Eusebius.  This  time,  the 
election  was  not  unanimous.  Another  candidate,  Heraclius, 
was  acclaimed  by  the  party  opposed  to  the  infliction  of 
penance.  The  schism  was  complete  :  troubles  began  once 
more.  At  the  end  of  four  months,  the  police  again  inter- 
fered, arrested  the  two  leaders,  and  drove  them  out  of 
Rome.  Eusebius,  banished  to  Sicily,  died  there  shortly 
afterwards. 

The  edict  of  Galerius  must  have  been  known  in  Rome 
by  the  month  of  May,  311.  Although  Maxentius  did  not 
show    himself    unfavourable   to   the    Christians,    he    had 

*  As  to  what  follows,  we  have  no  other  documents  than  the 
epitaphs  of  Popes  Marcellus  and  Eusebius,  composed  long  after- 
wards by  their  successor  Damasus.  The  description  they  give  of  the 
state  of  things  in  Rome  agrees  very  well  with  what  we  know  to  have 
happened  at  Carthage  and  at  Alexandria. 

'^  Damasus  does  not  give  his  name,  but  says  he  had  denied  Christ 
in  time  of  perfect  peace  [in  pace) — that  is  to  say,  before  the  persecu- 
tion.     He  was  an  apostate  before  the  lime. 


76  THE  SCHISMS  [ch.  in. 

maintained  the  confiscations  carried  out  in  303.  It  seems 
that  he  did  not  wish  to  be  behindhand  with  Galerius  in 
the  matter  of  toleration,  and  that  his  favourable  attitude 
towards  Christianity  was  increased  in  consequence.  The 
Roman  Church,  after  a  vacancy  of  one  or  two  years,  again 
gave  itself  a  bishop,  in  the  person  of  Miltiades  (July 
2,  311),  and  he  obtained  from  Maxentius  the  restitution 
of  the  confiscated  places.  The  "  tyrant "  and  his  praetorian 
prefect  issued  letters,  with  which  the  deacons  of  Miltiades 
presented  themselves  before  the  prefect  of  Rome :  the 
churches  were  officially  restored  to  them,  and  a  formal 
record  of  this  proceeding  was  drawn  up.^ 

This  time,  persecution  was  really  over ;  the  Roman 
Church  enjoyed  external  peace.  It  seemed  further  as 
though  internal  peace  were  also  successfully  established, 
for  we  hear  no  more,  after  that  time,  of  the  schism  with 
regard  to  penance.  Other  Churches  were  agitated  by  it 
for  a  longer  period, 

2,   The  Meletian  Schism? 

In  Egypt,  as  elsewhere,  the  question  of  the  apostates 
gave  rise  to  various  opinions,  and  thereby,  having  regard 
to  the  ecclesiastical  usages  of  the  time,  to  quarrels. 
Religious  peace  was  still  very  far  off,  when,  in  the  spring 
of  306,  the  Bishop  of  Alexandria  issued  a  formal  ruling 
upon  the  matter,  inspired  by  sentiments  of  mercy, 

1  This  formal  record,  as  well  as  that  regarding  the  confiscation, 
was  brought  forward  by  the  Donatists  at  the  conference  of  411. 
{Coll.  499-514  ;  Aug.  Brev.  iii.  34-36  ;  Ad  Don.  17.) 

-  Upon  the  Meletian  schism,  see— (i)  The  canons  in  the  letter  of  St 
Peter  of  Alexandria,  with  the  additions  in  the  Syriac  text,  edited  by 
Lagarde  in  his  Reliquiae  iuris  ecclcsiastici  antiquissimae,  and  retrans- 
lated into  Greek  by  E.  Schwartz,  "Zur  Geschichte  des  Athanasius," 
in  the  Gottingen  Nachfichien,  1905,  p.  166  ctseq.  ;  (2)  Several  extracts  at 
the  end  of  the  Historia  acephala  of  St  Athanasius  contained  in  the 
collection  attributed  to  the  deacon  Theodosius  (MS.  at  Verona,  No. 
LX.) :  (P.  Batififol,  Byzantinische  Zeitschrift,  1901,  has  carefully 
republished  them,  and  shown  the  link  which  connects  them  with  the 
Historia  acephala)  ;  (3)  Epiphanius  Hacr.  68,  in  which  the  original 
history  is  already  slightly  illustrated  with  legends  ;  (4)  Athanasius, 
Apol.  contra  Arianos,  11,  59  ;  Ad  episcopos  Aegypti  et  Libyae,  22,  23. 


p.  98]  ST  PETER  OF  ALEXANDRIA  77 

He  had  not  the  slightest  idea  of  receiving  apostates 
to  communion  without  penitence  ;  but  in  his  judgment  on 
particular  cases,  and  in  his  estimate  of  the  amends  to  be 
made,  he  gave  evidence  of  a  certain  compassion  for  the 
sinners,  as  well  as  a  certain  eagerness  to  fill  up  the  ranks 
of  his  Church,  considerably  thinned  by  so  many  apostasies. 
The  opposition  which  he  foresaw,^  when  publishing  his 
tariff  of  penance,  was  not  slow  in  manifesting  itself.  A 
bishop  of  Upper  Egypt,  Meletius  of  Lycopolis,  well  known 
for  his  uncompromising  severity,  protested  with  consider- 
able vigour,  declaring  that  such  a  course  was  inopportune, 
that,  before  holding  out  a  welcoming  hand  to  the  apostates, 
the  end  of  the  persecution  should  be  waited  for,  and  that 
then  severe  conditions  should  be  imposed  upon  them. 
He  did  not  go  so  far,  as  Novatian  had  done  half  a  century 
earlier,  as  to  deny  to  the  fallen  any  hope  of  being  restored 
to  the  communion  of  the  Church.  Between  him  and 
Bishop  Peter  there  were  only  questions  of  degrees  and 
of  the  proper  amount  of  penance.  But  they  were  sufficient 
to  lead  to  extremities. 

After  the  short  respite,  which  the  Bishop  of  Alexandria 
had  wrongly  imagined  to  be  the  dawn  of  real  peace, 
persecution  was  revived  in  the  East.  Peter  concealed 
himself  again,  and  his  representatives  in  the  "great  city" 
did  the  same.  Meletius  travelled  through  Egypt,  went 
from  church  to  church,  stirring  up  agitation  upon  the 
question  of  penance,  and  intruding  himself  to  perform 
ordinations,  in  place  of  the  Pastors  whom  the  persecution 
kept  in  separation  from  their  flocks,  and  of  those  whom 
they  had  chosen  to  fulfil  their  duties.  He  even  ordained 
bishops,  without  any  respect  for  the  rights  of  the  metro- 
politan, Peter,  who  alone  had  authority  in  such  matters. 
He  thus  drew  down  upon  himself  a  severe  letter  from 
four  of  his  colleagues,  Hesychius,  Pacomius,  Theodore, 
and  Phileas,  then  imprisoned  together  in  Alexandria.^ 
The  Bishop  of  Thmuis  and  his  three  companions  died 
soon  after.      Nevertheless,  the   unmanageable  Bishop  of 

1  Nachrichfcn,  1905,  p.  168. 

^  Migne,  Patrologia  Graeca,  vol.  x.,  p.  1565. 


78  THE  SCHISMS  [ch.  hi. 

Lycopolis  persisted  in  his  attitude.  He  came  to  Alex- 
andria, where  he  held  communication  with  two  ambitious 
teachers,  Isidore  and  Arius  ^ — the  latter  an  ascetic,  the 
other  of  more  easy  morals  ^ — who  disclosed  to  him  the 
place  of  concealment  of  the  bishop's  vicars.  Meletius  had 
the  audacity  to  replace  them  ;  and  chose,  for  that  purpose, 
two  confessors,  one  of  whom  was  in  prison,  and  the  other 
at  the  mines,  circumstances  calculated  to  win  for  them 
respect  but  not  to  facilitate  the  exercise  of  their  ministry. 

Peter,  being  soon  informed  of  these  vagaries,  pro- 
nounced an  excommunication  against  the  Bishop  of 
Lycopolis,  which  was  to  last  until  a  fuller  examination 
of  the  circumstances  could  be  made.  However,  Meletius 
was  arrested  and  sent  to  the  mines  of  Phseno,  where  he 
found  various  persons  of  his  own  way  of  thinking,  among 
them  another  Egyptian  bishop,  called  Peleus.  They 
sowed  discord  among  the  Christians  of  their  own  country 
who  were  working  in  this  prison.  These  unfortunate 
beings,  after  labouring  all  day  long,  spent  their  nights 
in  anathematizing  one  another.  When  they  were  released, 
in  31 1,  their  quarrels  were  not  made  up.  They  returned 
to  Egypt,  with  their  hearts  embittered,  less  against  their 
persecutors  than  against  their  brethren  who  did  not  share 
their  opinions.  The  martyrdom  of  Bishop  Peter  did  not 
extinguish  these  angry  feelings.^  His  successors  were 
restored  in  the  possession  of  the  churches ;  an  opposition 
to  them  was  started  in  conventicles,  which  were  called 
"  churches  of  the  martyrs  " — a  strange  title,  for,  after  all, 
Phileas  and  his  companions,  and  Bishop  Peter  himself, 
credited  with  being  the  patrons  of  apostates,  had  laid  down 
their  lives  for  the  faith  ;  while  Meletius,  on  his  return  from 
the  mines,  ended  by  dying  in  his  bed. 

^  Perhaps  the  celebrated  heretic. 

-  Moribus  turbulentus,  according  to  the  Latin  version. 

^  Athanasius,  Apol.  adv.  Ar.  59,  says  that  Meletius  was  condemned 
in  synod  by  Peter  of  Alexandria,  for  various  misdeeds  and  for  having 
sacrificed,  kirX  dvaia.  This  last  imputation  is  very  improbable.  It 
was  not  brought  forward,  or  at  least  was  not  proved,  before  the 
Council  of  Nic^a,  which,  if  this  had  been  the  case,  would  not  have 
extended  to  Meletius  such  lenient  conditions. 


r.  i()()-i]  THE  DONATISTS  79 

The  schism  continued  ;  it  ended  in  the  establishment 
of  an  opposition  hierarchy,  which  spread  throughout  the 
whole  of  Egypt,  and  lasted  for  one  or  two  generations. 
We  shall  soon  meet  with  it  again. 

3.   The  Donatist  Schism. 

Africa  also  was  sorely  troubled  by  schism  ;  things  even 
went  considerably  farther  there  than  in  Egypt.^  As  a 
consequence  of  the  abdication  of  Maximian  in  305,  the 
African  provinces  came  under  the  imperial  jurisdiction  of 
the  Caesar  Severus.  It  was  not  without  difficulty  that 
Maxentius  succeeded  in  obtaining  recognition  in  that 
country.  The  vicarius  of  Africa,  Alexander,  vacillated 
between  the  "  tyrant "  of  Rome  and  the  other  emperors, 
legitimate  but  remote.  He  ended  by  quarrelling  with 
Maxentius;  and,  to  extricate  himself  from  the  difficulties 
of  his  position,  proclaimed  himself  emperor  in  308.  This 
African  reign  lasted  three  years ;  Maxentius  put  an  end 
to  it  in  311,  before  engaging  in  his  own  war  against 
Constantine.  His  preetorian  prefect,  Rufius  Volusianus, 
sailed  from  Italy  and  overcame  Alexander,  who  was 
taken  prisoner  and  executed. 

The  persecution  seems  to  have  been  quickly  over  in 
Africa.  When  the  churches  had  been  destroyed,  and  the 
Scriptures  burnt  {dies  traditionis^  303),  when,  for  more 
than  a  year  (304),  Christians  had  been  hunted  out  to 
compel  them  to  offer  incense  {dies  tJmrificationis)^  the 
government  began  to  leave  them  comparatively  in  peace. 
It  was  possible  for  them  to  assemble  in  secret  without 
incurring  very  much  danger,  and  even  to  provide  for  the 
replacing  of  their  bishops  who  had  disappeared.  This  is 
what  took  place  at  Cirta,  in  the  spring  of  the  year  305  : 
about  ten  bishops  -  met  together  there  in  a  private  house, 

'  Upon  the  documents  with  regard  to  this  affair,  see  my  memoir, 
"  Le  dossier  du  Donatisme,"  in  the  Melanges  of  the  School  of  Rome, 
vol.  X.,  1890. 

2  Council  of  Cirta,  formal  record  read  at  the  conference  of  411 
(»'•  351-355  ;  387-400;  408-432  ;  452-470;  Aug.  Brev.  ill.  27,  31-33). 
St  Augustine  gives  a  long  fragment  of  it  {Adv.  Cresc.  ill.  30) ;  cf.  Ep. 


80  THE  SCHISMS  [ch.  hi. 

to  give  a  successor  to  Bishop  Paul.  The  latter,  as  we 
learn  from  the  formal  record  of  the  seizure  of  his  church, 
drawn  up  in  303,  had  not  been  a  hero.  And  this  was  the 
case  with  the  majority  of  the  persons  present.  The 
president  of  the  assembly,  Secundus  of  Tigisi,  the  senior 
of  the  Numidian  bishops,  conceived  the  idea,  quite  praise- 
worthy in  itself,  of  making  enquiries  as  to  the  conduct  of 
his  colleagues.  One  of  them  had  refused  to  burn  incense, 
but,  the  year  before,  he  had  been  a  traditor ;  another  had 
thrown  the  Four  Gospels  into  the  fire ;  others  had  given 
up  various  books  to  the  police,  but  not  the  Scriptures. 
With  regard  to  Purpurius,  Bishop  of  Limata,  many 
damaging  rumours  were  in  circulation  ;  he  was  accused  of 
having  killed  two  of  his  sister's  children.  He  was  certainly 
not  at  all  an  estimable  person,  and  his  temper  was  very 
violent.  He  was  in  a  great  rage  with  Secundus,  who 
became  frightened,  cut  short  his  investigations,  and  passed 
a  general  condemnation  upon  the  sins  of  his  brother 
bishops. 

He  was  not  himself  above  suspicion.  It  was  known 
that  he  had  been  called  upon  by  the  curator  and  the 
municipality  to  give  up  the  sacred  books ;  but  how  he  got 
out  of  it  was  less  clear.  Purpurius,  quick  of  tongue,  did 
not  hesitate  to  tell  him  so  to  his  face.  As  for  Secundus, 
he  had  his  own  version  of  the  occurrence.^  To  the 
messengers  of  the  curator^  he  had  replied  majestically  :  "  I 
am  a  Christian  and  a  Bishop  ;  I  am  not  a  traditor."  When 
still  pressed  to  give  up  at  least  something,  however  small 
its  value,  he  had  equally  refused. 

It  was  in  this  way  that  he  explained  the  matter  to 
Mensurius  of  Carthage,-  about  the  time  of  the  meeting  at 
Cirta.  Mensurius  had  written  to  him — it  is  not  known  to 
what  effect — perhaps  to  consult  with  him  as  to  the  measures 

43,  3  ;  Contra  litt.  Petiliani,  I.  23  ;  De  unico  bapt.  31  ;  Ad  Donatisias^ 
18  ;  Contra  Gaudentium,  i,  47,  etc. ;  Optatus,  De  schism,  i.  14. 

'  Aug.  Brev.  Coll.  iii.  25. 

^  The  letters  of  Mensurius  and  Secundus,  read  at  the  conference 
of  41 1  (iii.  334-343  ;  Brev.  iii.  25,  27),  are  also  quoted  by  St  Augustine, 
Ad  Don.  18  ;  De  unico  bapt.  29  ;  Contra  Gaud.  i.  47. 


p.  103]  MENSURIUS  OF  CARTHAGE  81 

to  be  taken  after  the  persecution.  The  Bishop  of  Carthage 
related  in  his  letter  how  cleverly  he  had  evaded  the  search 
and  substituted  heretical  works  for  the  Holy  Scriptures.^ 
He  spoke  also  of  certain  enthusiasts,  whom  no  one  asked 
to  give  up  the  Scriptures,  but  who  went  to  the  police,  of 
their  own  accord,  boasting  that  they  possessed  the  sacred 
books,  and  proclaiming  that  they  would  never  give  them 
up.  The  ill-treatment  they  thus  drew  upon  themselves 
did  not  at  all  recommend  them  to  the  bishop,  who  forbade 
any  honour  to  be  paid  them.  He  was  not  less  severe  with 
regard  to  certain  Christians  of  evil  repute,  notorious 
criminals  or  public  debtors,  who  found  during  the 
persecution  a  respectable  way  of  putting  themselves  right, 
gaining  an  honourable  reputation,  and  even  living  com- 
fortably in  prison,  where  the  generosity  of  the  faithful 
enabled  them  to  amass  a  little  fortune  for  themselves. 

We  know  from  other  documents  that  Mensurius,  whose 
clever  evasions  could  scarcely  have  been  known  to  the 
public,  passed  at  Carthage  as  a  traditor,  and  that,  if  the 
opinion  of  lax  Christians  ignored  this,  he  was  severely 
condemned  in  the  prisons,  where  the  confessors  were 
suffering  pain  and  misery  while  awaiting  the  last  penalty. 
Mensurius  had  thought  it  necessary  to  interfere  actively 
in  restraining  the  zeal  of  the  faithful.  His  deacon 
Caecilian,  who  was  charged  with  this  office,  necessary 
perhaps  according  to  the  bishop's  ideas,  but  in  any  case 
odious,  was  accustomed  to  lay  wait  for  persons  at  the 
approaches  to  the  prisons  and  to  intercept  the  food  which 
was  being  carried  thither.  The  martyrs  retaliated  to 
these  harsh  measures  by  the  excommunication  :  "  He  who 
is  in  communion  with  traditores,  shall  have  no  part  with  us 
in  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven."  - 

We  see,  then,  that  in  Carthage  the  situation  was  some- 
what strained.     Once  more,  as  in  the  time  of  Decius,  the 

'  Supra,  p.  1 6. 

2  Passion  of  SS.  Safurnimis,  Dativus,  etc.  (Migne,  P.  L.  vol.  viii., 
p.  700,  701).  This  is  a  Donatist  document,  written  after  the 
beginning  of  the  schism.  It  is  possible  that  some  features  in  it  may 
be  exaggerated.     I  do  not  accept  it  entirely. 

II  F 


82  THE  SCHISMS  [ch.  hi. 

confessors  were  in  conflict  with  their  bishop ;  and 
Mensurius  was  not  Cyprian.  The  senior  bishop  of 
Numidia,  who  was  well  acquainted  with  the  position  of 
affairs,  replied  to  his  colleague  by  extolling  the  grand 
examples  given  in  his  own  province,  the  severity  of  the 
persecution,  the  resistance  it  had  met  with,  the  courage  of 
the  martyrs  who  had  refused  to  give  up  the  Holy 
Scriptures  and,  on  that  account,  had  suffered  death.  They 
had  a  worthy  claim  to  the  honour  they  received.  He  also 
spoke  of  his  own  conduct,  in  the  terms  quoted  above. 
This  letter  strongly  reminds  us  of  the  one  which  Cyprian 
received  from  the  Roman  clergy,  after  the  first  days  of 
persecution.^  The  result  was  that  a  certain  agreement  of 
view  was  very  soon  arrived  at  between  the  Numidian 
episcopate  and  the  most  zealous  Christians  of  Carthage, 
especially  with  regard  to  their  estimate  of  Bishop 
Mensurius  and  his  attitude.  The  consequences  were  not 
slow  to  disclose  themselves. 

Among  the  persons  compromised  in  the  "  usurpa- 
tion "  of  Alexander,  and  diligently  sought  for,  when  the 
Maxentian  reaction  ensued,  was  a  certain  deacon,  Felix, 
accused  of  having  written  a  pamphlet  against  Maxentius  ; 
he  took  refuge  with  the  bishop.  Being  called  upon  to 
give  him  up,  Mensurius  refused.^  His  position  in 
Carthage  must  have  been  an  important  one,  for  the 
proconsul  did  not  feel  competent  to  proceed  on  his 
own  authority.  He  sent  a  report  to  the  emperor,  who 
ordered  that,  if  Mensurius  persisted,  he  was  to  be  sent  to 
Rome.  The  bishop  was  actually  put  on  board,  pleaded 
his  own  cause,  and  gained  it.  Obtaining  permission  to 
return  home,  he  died  before  arriving  at  Carthage. 

As  soon  as  the  death  of  Mensurius  became  known, 
immediate  steps  were  taken  to  proceed  to  the  election  of 
his  successor.  The  deacon  Caecilian  was  elected.  Three 
bishops   from    the  neighbourhood    of  Carthage,^  Felix  of 

^  Vol.  I.,  p.  291. 

2  This  circumstance  is  honourable  to  Mensurius,  and  proves  that 
he  was  not  deficient  in  character. 

^  This  was  already  the  custom  in  the  time  of  Cyprian  :  Quod  apud 


p.  106]  CONSECRATION  OF  C^CILIAN  83 

Aptonga  and  two  others,  took  part  in  his  ordination. 
Nothing  could  have  been  more  regular.  But,  unfortun- 
ately, Ca^cilian  was  seriously  compromised  in  the  eyes 
of  the  fanatics.  Like  the  deceased  bishop,  he  was  to 
them  a  traditor,  an  enemy  of  the  saints,  an  ecclesiastical 
persecutor.  An  opposition  party  was  formed  at  once. 
Two  priests,  Botrus  and  Celestius,  were  ostensibly  at  the 
head  of  it.  It  was  afterwards  related  that,  before  his 
departure  for  Italy,  Mensurius,  anxious  about  the  treasures 
of  his  Church,  had  entrusted  a  large  number  of  valuable 
things  to  two  old  men,  and  that,  without  informing  them 
of  the  fact,  he  had  also  given  to  an  old  woman  a  document 
mentioning  this  deposit,  with  an  inventory  of  the  treasures. 
If  any  misfortune  were  to  happen  to  the  bishop,  she  was 
to  wait  until  his  successor  was  installed,  and  then  to  hand 
over  the  document  to  him.  She  did  so,  and  this  greatly 
annoyed  the  trustees,  who  had  made  up  their  minds  to 
be  unfaithful,  and  transformed  them  into  enemies  of 
Caecilian.  But  his  most  formidable  adversary  was  Lucilla, 
a  lady  of  high  rank,  very  devout,  rich,  and  influential,  of 
a  quarrelsome  disposition,^  and  an  old  enemy  of  the 
archdeacon,  who,  even  before  the  persecution,  had  opposed 
her  practices  of  devotion.^  She  seized  the  opportunity  of 
doing  him  an  ill  turn.  We  know  what  people  of  this  kind 
are  capable  of 

The  opposition  party  organized  itself,  refused  to 
recognize  Caecilian,  and  invoked  the  support  of  the 
Numidian  bishops,  with  whom  they  had  long  been  on 
friendly  terms.  One  of  these  prelates,  Donatus  of  Casae 
NigraCy  had  been  staying  for  some  time  in  Carthage  ;  even 

nos  quoqtie  et per provincias  universas  tenetiir  ut  ad  ordinatiotics  rite 
celcbrandas  ad  ea7ii  pkbcm  cui  praeposifus  ordinaiur  episcopi  ejusdevi 
provinciac proxuni  quique  conveniant  {Ep.  Ixvii.  5).  In  Rome  also, 
it  was  the  Bishop  of  Ostia,  assisted^  by  several  neighbouring  prelates, 
who  consecrated  the  Pope. 

'  Potens  et  factiosa  fonina. 

'^  She  was  accustomed,  at  communion,  before  drinking  from  the 
chalice,  to  kiss  a  bone  which,  she  said,  had  belonged  to  a  martyr — 
who  in  any  case  had  not  been  recognized  as  such  {vindicatiis)  by  the 
Church  of  Carthage. 


84  THE  SCHISMS  [ch.  iii. 

before  Caecilian's  ordination,  he  had  openly  professed  the 
greatest  dislike  for  him,  and  had  already  held  aloof.  In 
these  early  days  of  the  struggle  he  played  an  important 
part.  As  to  the  senior  bishop,  Secundus,  he  assembled  his 
forces,  and  hastened  to  Carthage,  to  meddle  with  what  was 
certainly  no  concern  of  his. 

Seventy  bishops  were  thus  assembled  to  wage  war 
against  Caecilian.  Although  he  had  been  regularly 
installed,  they  pretended  not  to  consider  him  a  legitimate 
pastor,  and  held  their  meetings  outside  the  ecclesiastical 
precincts  which  Maxentius  first,  and  afterwards  Constantine, 
had  restored  to  him.  Lucilla  and  her  friends  joined  them, 
with  all  the  fanatics  and  enemies  of  the  acting  clergy  in 
Carthage.  Caecilian  was  summoned  to  appear  before 
them.  Naturally,  he  refused,^  not  being  in  any  way 
subject  to  the  jurisdiction  of  this  irregular  assembly,  whose 
first  duty  should  have  been  to  recognize  him  as  its  head. 
His  case  was  judged  by  default.  It  was  decided  that 
Felix  of  Aptonga,  who  consecrated  him,  having  been  a 
traditor,  his  ordination  was  null  and  void ;  he  was  also 
condemned  for  his  attitude,  as  deacon  to  Mensurius,  with 
regard  to  the  imprisoned  confessors.  As  at  the  council 
of  256,  each  of  the  bishops  present  gave  a  vote  with 
reasons  assigned.  Several  bishops  from  the  neighbour- 
hood of  Carthage  were  condemned  with  Caecilian ;  and 
first  and  foremost,  Felix  of  Aptonga ;  all  on  the  ground 
that  they  were  guilty  of  being  traditores.  Without 
adjourning,  the  bishops  then  elected  and  ordained,  in 
place  of  Caecilian,  a  reader  called  Majorinus,  who  belonged 
to  the  house  of  Lucilla.  The  latter,  now  finally  revenged 
upon    her   bishop,    did    not    fail    to    reward    those    who 

'  Optatus  relates  {De  schism,  i.  19)  that  Caecilian,  learning  that 
the  power  of  his  consecrators  to  ordain  him  was  disputed,  exclaimed  : 
"  Very  well !  Let  them  ordain  me  themselves,  then,  if  they  think 
I  am  not  a  bishop."  Purpurius  had  then  thought  of  allowing  him 
to  come,  and  of  laying  his  hands  upon  him,  not  as  a  bishop,  but  as  a 
penitent,  which  would  have  meant  excluding  him  from  the  clergy 
altogether.  These  ideas,  or  that  of  Purpurius  at  least,  are  sufficiently 
probable. 


1'.  lu.s-9]  SCHISjM  at  CARTHAGE  85 

had      helped      her,     and     sent     considerable      sums     to 
Numidia.^ 

To  anyone  who  really  understood  the  circumstances, 
this  council  must  have  presented  a  singular  spectacle. 
From  authentic  documents  it  is  clear  that  several,  and 
those  the  most  influential,  of  its  members  were 
traditores  whose  guilt  was  established  ;  and  that  upon 
others,  and  upon  Secundus  himself,  rested  very  grave 
suspicions  in  that  respect.  This  did  not  prevent  them 
from  posing  as  defenders  of  the  saints,  full  of  righteous 
indignation  at  the  position  of  Caecilian's  consecrator.  But 
their  sins  were  ngt  known  in  Carthage  ;  some  ten  years 
had  still  to  elapse  before  they  came  to  the  knowledge  of 
the  public.  In  the  eyes  of  many  people  at  the  time,  they 
had  the  appearance  of  being  upright  and  zealous  judges  ; 
Majorinus  was  soon  surrounded  by  a  powerful  party. 

However,  the  churches  were  in  the  power  of  Csecilian. 
It  was  he  whom  the  government  consulted  in  all  the 
negotiations  relating  to  the  settlement  of  the  last  crisis.-^ 
In  a  letter,  addressed  to  him  by  the  emperor,^  Constantine, 
already  acquainted  with  the  divisions  in  the  African 
Church,  invited  Caecilian  to  seek  the  support  of  the  pro- 
consul Anulinus  and  the  Vicarius  Patricius,  against  those 
who  were  the  cause  of  disturbances. 

It  was  then  the  month  of  April,  313.  One  day  the 
proconsul  was  accosted  in  the  street  by  a  large  crowd  of 
persons,  the  leaders  of  whom  presented  him  with  two 
documents,  one  sealed,  the  other  open.  The  first  bore  the 
inscription  :  "  Plaints  of  the  Catholic  Church  against 
Caicilian,  presented  by  the  party  of  Majorinus."  The 
other  was  a  brief  petition,  in  the  following  terms :  "  We 
appeal  to  you,  our  good  Emperor  Constantine,  for  you 
come  of  a  just  race ;  your  father,  unlike  the  other 
emperors,  never  practised  persecution,  and  Gaul  remained 
free  from  that  crime.  In  Africa,  quarrels  have  arisen 
between    us   and    the    other   bishops.     We  implore   your 

'  Four  hundred /c//i?j  ;  nearly  sixty  thousand  francs  (^2,400). 
-  Letters  in  Eusebius,  H.  E.  x.  5,  6,  7. 
•^  Eusebius,  //.  E.  x.  6. 


86  THE  SCHISMS  [ch.  in. 

Piety  to  send  us  judges  from  Gaul.  Given  by  Lucian, 
Dignus,  Nasutius,  Capito,  Fidentius,  and  other  bishops  of 
the  party  of  Majorinus."  ^  The  proconsul  received  these 
documents,  and  forwarded  them.  Constantine  thus  found 
himself  in  the  same  situation  as  Aurelian  at  Antioch, 
forty  years  before,  that  of  being  made  cognizant  of  a 
dispute  between  two  Christian  parties,  and  interested  by 
his  regard  for  public  order  that  it  should  be  cut  short  as 
effectually  as  possible.  But  Constantine  was  personally 
influenced  in  this  affair  by  sympathies  quite  different  from 
those  of  Aurelian.  Besides,  he  was  not  requested  to 
pronounce  judgment  himself  upon  the  dispute,  but/  to 
submit  it  to  the  consideration  of  bishops  in  a  specified 
country.  The  dissenting  Africans  obtained  the  judges 
they  asked  for.  The  emperor  selected  Rheticius,  Bishop 
of  Autun,  Maternus  of  Cologne,  and  Marinus  of  Aries. 
At  the  same  time,  he  thought  it  his  duty  to  send  them  to 
Rome,  and  entrust  Pope  Miltiades  with  the  office  of 
presiding  over  and  controlling  the  debates.  To  this  end 
he  communicated  to  the  Pope-  the  act  of  accusation 
received  by  Anulinus,  and  took  measures  to  arrange  that 
Ceecilian  should  come  to  Rome,  with  ten  African  bishops 
of  his  own  party  and  ten  of  the  adverse  party. 

The  tribunal  assembled  in  the  house  of  Fausta,  at  the 
Lateran,^  on  October  2,  313;  there  were  three  sittings.* 
By  agreement  with  the  emperor,  the  Pope  had  added  to 
the  bishops  from  Gaul  fifteen   Italian  prelates^;  so  that 

^  .  .  .  ^/  caeteris  episcopis  partis  Dottafi,  runs  the  transcription  of 
this  document  in  Optatus  i.  22.  But  here,  the  ending  has  been 
retouched. 

^  Letter  from  Constantine  to  Pope  Miltiades  in  Eusebius,  H.  E.  x.  5, 

^  This  is  the  first  time  that  the  Lateran  is  mentioned  in  ecclesi- 
astical documents.  Perhaps  the  house  of  Fausta  had  already  been 
ceded  to  the  Roman  Church,  either  as  a  gracious  gift  or  in  compensa- 
tion for  some  confiscated  property. 

*  The  formal  record  of  the  first  sitting  was  read  at  the  conference 
of  411  (iii.  320-336,  403,  540  ;  Brev.  iii.  24,  31).  A  large  fragment  in 
Optatus,  Dc  schism,  i.  23,  24  ;  cf.  Aug.  Contra  cp.  Parnien.  i.  10  ;  Ep. 
43,  5,  14  ;  Ad  Donat.  56,  etc. 

"  The  Bishops  of  Milan,  Pisa,  Florence,  Sienna,  Rimini,  Faenza, 
Capua,  Beneventum,  Quintiana  {Labicuiii),  Preneste,   Tres  Tabernae, 


p.  Ill]  ROMAN  COUNCIL  IN  313  87 

there  were  nineteen  bishops  in  all.  Donatus  of  Casae 
Nigrae  led  the  chorus  of  the  opposition.  Requested  to 
state  what  was  their  cause  of  complaint  against  Caecilian, 
they  declared  that  they  had  no  personal  objection  to  him, 
and  postponed  to  another  sitting  the  statement  and  the 
proof  of  the  objections  which  they  raised  to  his  ordina- 
tion.^ Donatus,  however,  formulated  some  causes  of 
complaint  which  he  could  not  substantiate.  This  led  to 
his  being  accused  himself  It  was  shown  that,  even  before 
the  ordination  of  Caecilian,  he  had  been  a  fomenter  of 
schism  in  Carthage ;  he  admitted  that  he  had  performed 
rebaptism,  no  doubt  upon  apostates,-  and  that  he  had 
laid  hands  on  bishops  who  were  lapsi^  both  of  them  things 
contrary  to  the  rules  of  the  Church.  No  more  was  done 
on  the  first  day.  At  the  second  sitting  the  adversaries 
of  Caecilian  refrained  from  putting  in  an  appearance  : 
the  third  day  was  given  up  to  the  votes,  which  the  judges 
pronounced  one  after  the  other,  first  against  Donatus,  and 
then  in  favour  of  Cscilian.  We  still  possess  that  of  Pope 
Miltiades,  who  spoke  last:  "Whereas  Caecilian  has  not 
been  accused  by  those  who  came  with  Donatus,  as  they 
had  announced,^  and  as  he  has  not  been  upon  any  point 
convicted  by  Donatus,  I  think  it  is  right  to  support  him 
entirely  in  his  ecclesiastical  communion."  ^ 

The  schismatics  were  thus  condemned  and  by  the  very 

Ostia,  For^in  Claiidii^  Terracina,  Ursinum  ij)  ;  this  last  name  may 
perhaps  represent  Bolsena  {Vulsinii),  perhaps  Urbino  {Urvinunt). 

^  It  is  thus  that  we  may  reconcile  two  points  in  St  Augustine's 
summary  :  ubi  accusatores  Caeciliani  qui  inissi  fuerant  negaverunt  se 
habere  quod  in  eutn  dicerent  .  .  .  ubi  etiam  promiserunt  iidetn  ad- 
versarii  Caeciliani  alio  die  se  repraesetttaturos  quos  causae  necessaries 
subtraxissc  argucbantur.  I  think  they  intended  to  direct  the  debate 
upon  the  consecrator,  Felix  of  Aptonga. 

2  The  rebaptism  of  heretics  was  still  practised  by  everyone  in 
Africa.  There  was  no  reason  to  complain  of  Donatus  on  that 
account.  As  to  his  laying  hands  on  the  bishops,  we  cannot  quite  see 
whether  it  was  a  case  of  reordination  or  readmission  of  penitents  ; 
both  were  inadmissible,  according  to  received  custom. 

^  Juxta  profcssionem  siuwi  ;  these  words  are  not  very  clear. 

•*  That  is  to  say,  in  his  position  with  regard  to  communion  with 
them,  such  as  he  had  before  the  schism. 


88  THE  SCHISMS  [ch.  hi. 

judges  whom  they  themselves  had  demanded.  They  set 
out  on  their  return  to  Africa,  but  did  not  consider  them- 
selves beaten,  and  soon  appeared  again  to  assail  the 
emperor  with  their  protestations.  The  affair,  they  said, 
had  not  been  examined  properly,  and  in  detail.  From 
that  time,  Constantine  had  very  little  respect  for  these 
disturbers  of  the  peace ;  he  had  willingly  concurred  in 
the  judgment  of  the  Roman  council.  But  the  accounts 
which  his  officials  sent  him  from  Africa  were  not  reassur- 
ing. A  little  spark  had  kindled  a  great  fire.  Division 
was  raging  everywhere.  Some  of  the  bishops  recognized 
Majorinus,  others  Csecilian ;  often,  in  the  same  town,  two 
parties  organized  themselves,  one  against  the  other.  There 
were  two  bishops  at  Carthage ;  and  the  same  state  of 
things  reproduced  itself  elsewhere.  The  minds  of  men 
were  excited  to  an  extreme  degree :  the  followers  of 
Majorinus  called  themselves  the  Church  of  the  Martyrs,  as 
the  Meletians  of  Egypt  had  done,  and  described  the  others 
as  the  party  of  "  the  traitors."  In  such  an  over-heated 
atmosphere  as  this,  the  Church  quarrels  soon  degenerated 
into  acts  of  violence  and  street  fights.  The  government 
was  therefore  justified  in  interfering  in  this  unfortunate 
affair,  however  paltry  it  might  seem,  and  in  endeavouring 
to  settle  it. 

Constantine  decided  to  have  the  case  tried  over  again. 
To  this  end  he  convoked  a  great  council  in  Gaul,  at 
Aries,  to  meet  on  August  i,  314.^  It  actually  took 
place.-      The    schismatics    supported    their    cause    there 

^  We  still  have  the  letter  of  summons,  addressed  to  the  Bishop 
of  Syracuse,  Chrestus  (Eusebius,  fl.  E.  x.  5),  and  the  order  given 
to  the  Vicariiis  of  Africa,  yElafius,  to  send  to  Aries  a  certain 
number  of  African  bishops  of  both  parties  (Migne,  P.  L.  vol,  viii., 
p.  483). 

2  With  reference  to  this  council,  we  possess  a  letter  addressed 
to  Pope  Silvester,  of  which  several  recensions  exist.  That  of  the 
Sylloge  Optattana  (Vienna  Corpus  scriptorum  eccl.  latinorum,  vol. 
xxvi,,  p.  206)  gives  the  convening  letter  in  full,  and  an  abridgment 
of  the  canons  of  the  council ;  it  is  otherwise  in  the  recension  of  the 
collections  of  canons  which  also  contains  the  signatures  of  the 
members  of  the  assembly.     The  following  Churches  were  represented 


p.  114]  COUNCIL  OF  ARLES,  314  89 

with  their  usual  insolence,  which  produced  a  most  un- 
favourable impression.  The  bishops  could  scarcely 
recognize  such  enraged  fanatics  as  Christians.^  Not 
only  did  they  refuse  to  listen  to  their  accusations,  but 
they  condemned  the  accusers  themselves.  They  also 
laid  down  the  principles  which  ought  to  decide  the  matter  : 
"  Whoever  shall  have  given  up  the  Holy  Scriptures  or 
the  sacred  vessels,  or  betrayed  the  names  of  his  brethren, 
ought  to  be  removed  from  the  ranks  of  the  clergy ;  always 
provided  that  the  facts  against  him  be  confirmed  by 
official  documents  {cictis  publicis)^  and  not  by  mere 
rumours.  If  any  such  person  has  conferred  ordination, 
and  there  is  no  cause  of  complaint  against  those  he  has 
ordained,  the  ordination  so  conferred  cannot  prejudice 
him  who  has  received  it.  And,  as  there  are  some  people 
who,  against  ecclesiastical  rule,  claim  the  right  of  being 
admitted  as  accusers,  while  supported  by  suborned 
witnesses,  such  persons  must  not  be  admitted,  unless, 
as  we  said  before,  they  can  produce  official  documents."  '-^ 

Nothing  could  be  wiser.  It  was  necessary  to  put 
a  stop  to  the  accusations,  by  which,  almost  everywhere, 
the  clergy  were  threatened  by  the  discontented,  to  punish 
those  who  were  really  guilty,  to  secure  peace  to  the 
innocent,  and  to  pass  condemnation  in  doubtful  cases. 

The  Council  of  Aries  profited  by  this  opportunity 
to  regulate  various  points  of  discipline.  We  may  note 
here    the    understanding    which    was     then    established, 

at  the  Council  of  Aries  either  by  their  bishops  or  by  other  clerics. 
Italy :  Rome,  Portus,  Centumcellae,  Ostia,  Capua,  Arpi,  Syracuse, 
Cagliari,  Milan,  Aquileia ;  Dalniatia :  a  bishop,  whose  name  is 
lost;  Gaul:  Aries,  Vienne,  Marseille,  Vaison,  Orange,  Apt,  Nice, 
Bordeaux,  Gabales,  Eauze,  Lyon,  Autun,  Rouen,  Reims,  Treves, 
Cologne  ;  Britain :  London,  York,  Lincoln,  and  perhaps  a  fourth 
Church ;  Spain  :  Emerita,  Tarragona,  Saragossa,  Basti,  Ursona, 
and  another  Church  of  Bastica ;  Africa :  Carthage,  Cassarea  in 
Mauritania,  Utina,  Utica,  Thuburbo,  Beneventum  (?),  Pocofeltis  (.?), 
Legisvolumini  (?),  Vera  (.''). 

'  Graves  ac  perniciosos  Icgi  nostrac  atqiie  traditioni  cffrotatacqiie 
metitis  homines pertuliiniis.     Letter  to  Silvester. 

"  Can.  I  s. 


90  THE  SCHISMS  [ch.  hi. 

upon  the  question  of  the  baptism  of  heretics,  between 
the  Church  on  the  continent  of  Europe  and  the  Africans, 
those  of  them,  at  least,  who  followed  Caecilian.  The 
African  Church  renounced  the  custom,  for  which  Cyprian 
had  fought  so  ardently  sixty  years  before,  and  promised 
to  conform  to  the  rule  observed  at  Rome  and  in  the 
other  Churches  of  the  West.^ 

The  decision  at  Aries  was  not  without  effect ;  a  certain 
number  of  the  dissidents  joined  themselves  to  Caecilian  - ; 
but  the  leaders  remained  obstinate.  As  little  satisfied 
with  the  Council  of  Aries  as  they  had  been  with  the 
Council  of  Rome,  they  again  hastened  to  appeal  to  the 
prince  who  had  given  them  this  twofold  opportunity  of 
justifying  their  position.  Constantine  was  extremely 
irritated  at  their  obstinacy.  Nevertheless,  he  was  willing 
to  exhaust  all  means  of  conciliation,  and  accepted  their 
appeal.^ 

Either  before  or  after  the  Council  of  Aries,'*  it  had 
been  decided  by  both  parties  to  investigate  the  affair 
of  Felix  of  Aptonga  and  his  "  surrender."  The  Donatists  ^ 
had  conceived  the  idea  of  going  to  the  fountain-head, 
and  obtaining  a  certificate  from  the  municipal  magistrates 
of  Aptonga  to  the  effect  that  Bishop  Felix  had  really 
surrendered  the  Holy  Scriptures  in  303.  The  duumvir 
who  had  then  been  in  office,  Alfius  Caecilianus,  was  still 
alive.  To  him  was  sent  a  certain  Ingentius,  with  instruc- 
tions to  get  the  necessary  document  from  him.  Alfius 
was  a  respectable  pagan,  sufficiently  astute  to  guess   at 

1  Can.  8.  -  Aug.  Brcv.  Coll.  iii.  37. 

3  Letter  of  Constantine  to  the  bishops  of  the  Council  of  Aries, 
Actema,  religiosa  (Migne,  P.  L.  vol.  viii.,  p.  487). 

*  The  date  is  not  so  exact  as  we  could  wish.  We  know  that  the 
Council  of  Aries  was  convened  for  August  i,  314;  but  there  is 
nothing  to  prove  that  it  assembled  exactly  at  that  time,  and  we 
do  not  know  how  long  the  bishops  remained  assembled.  However, 
it  was  certainly  held  in  314.     {Melanges  de  I'Ecole  de  Ro/ne,vo\.  x., 

p.  644)- 

^  We  may  now  employ  that  term,  because  the  celebrated  Donatus, 
from  whom  the  party  took  its  name,  must  by  that  time  have  succeeded 
Majorinus. 


p.  116]     THE  CASE  OF  FELIX  OF  APTONGA  91 

once  that  they  desired  to  take  advantage  of  him,  and 
he  refused  to  speak.  However,  one  of  his  friends, 
Augentius,  who  had  influence  over  him,  was  induced  to 
intervene,  and  he  was  told  that  Bishop  Felix,  having 
received  in  trust  several  precious  books  which  he  did 
not  wish  to  give  up,  desired  a  certificate  that  they 
had  been  burnt  during  the  persecution.  The  honest 
Alfius  was  scandalized  at  this  disclosure : — "  Here  is  a 
sample,"  he  said,  "of  the  good  faith  of  Christians!"  But 
he  consented  to  write  to  Felix  a  letter  in  which  he  recalled 
to  him  what  had  happened  in  303  ;  how  he  had,  in  the 
absence  of  the  bishop,  seized  the  church,  taken  away 
the  bishop's  throne,  burnt  the  doors  and  the  correspondence 
{epistolas  salutatorias).  The  Donatist  agent  was  obliged 
to  be  content  with  this  not  very  compromising  document. 
When  he  returned  home,  he  made  haste  to  complete  it 
by  a  post-script  of  quite  a  different  meaning. 

This  letter,  however,  did  not  constitute  an  official 
document.  To  give  it  that  character,  it  was  planned  to 
obtain  its  authentication  by  the  curia  of  Carthage.  Tak- 
ing advantage  of  a  journey  which  the  dwunvir  Alfius  had 
taken  to  the  capital,  they  summoned  him  to  appear — at 
the  request  of  a  certain  Maximus,  another  Donatist  agent 
— before  "  Aurelius  Didymus  Speretius,  priest  of  Jupiter 
Optimus  Maximus,  duumvir  of  the  illustrious  colony  of 
Carthage,"  in  order  to  certify  the  notorious  letter.  It  was 
increased  by  the  post-script ;  but  whether  because  he  was 
not  allowed  to  read  the  whole,  or  from  some  other  cause, 
Alfius  declared  himself  to  be  the  author  of  the  document. 
This  formal  appearance  took  place  on  August  19,  314.^ 

The  government  also  instituted  enquiries  of  its  own. 
By  command  of  the  emperor,  the  vicariiis  .^lius  Paulinus 
summoned  the  ^^-duuvivir  Alfius  and  his  recorder  from 
Aptonga.  They  had  to  wait  a  long  time  at  Carthage,- 
for  yElius  Paulinus  had  just  then  been  replaced,  and  his 

'  "  Gesta  purgationis  Felicis  "  {P.  L.  vol.  viii.,  p.  718  et seq.  ;  Corpus 
scriptorum  ecclesiasticortini  latinoruvi,  vol.  xxvi.,  p.  197  et  seq.). 

'^  It  was  perhaps  during  this  stay  that  Alfius  Ctecilianus  appeared 
before  the  duumvir  of  Carthage. 


92  THE  SCHISMS  [ch.  iii. 

successor,  Verus,  fell  ill,  so  that  the  proconsul  yElianus 
was  obliged  to  take  charge  of  the  matter.  He  summoned 
before  him,  not  only  Alfius,  but  also  a  centurion  named 
Superius  ;  a  former  curator,  Saturninus  ;  the  curator  then 
in  office,  Calibius  ;  and  a  public  slave,  Solon.  These  were 
all  carefully  interrogated  at  the  proconsular  audience 
on  February  15,  315.  Alfius,  being  summoned  to  identify 
his  letter,  examined  it  more  closely,  and  declared  that  the 
clauses  compromising  Bishop  Felix  had  been  added  later, 
and  had  not  been  dictated  by  him.  The  forger,  Ingentius, 
also  appeared ;  he  was  not  put  on  the  rack,  because  he 
happened  to  be  dccurion  of  a  small  town  ;  but  he  confessed, 
without  torture,  that  he  had  added  the  post-script  to  Alfius' 
letter  to  revenge  himself  upon  Bishop  Felix,  against 
whom  he  had  some  grudge.  The  report  was  despatched 
to  the  emperor,  who  summoned  Ingentius  to  appear 
before  him.^ 

Constantino  was  much  embarrassed  by  this  affair,  for 
he  saw  quite  plainly  that  there  was  no  way  of  inducing 
such  fanatics  to  submit  with  a  good  grace.  At  first  he 
thought  of  sending  some  trustworthy  persons  to  Africa, 
after  sending  back  there  -  the  Donatist  bishops  who  were 
prosecuting  the  interests  of  their  own  party  at  his  court. 
Some  days  after,  he  changed  his  mind,  kept  them  with 
him,^  and  summoned  both  parties  to  Rome,  where  he 
spent  the  summer.  The  Donatists  came,  but  Caecilian, 
we  do  not  know  why,  did  not  appear.  The  emperor  was 
very  angry  at  this.  He  threatened  to  go  himself  to 
Africa,  and  teach  both  parties  "how  the  Divinity  ought 
to  be  worshipped."^ 

Another  year  passed  by.  Constantine  succeeded  in 
bringing  together  the  two  leaders,  Caecilian  and  his  rival 
Donatus,  the  successor  of  Majorinus  as  head  of  the  opposi- 

1  Letter  of  Constantine  to  the  proconsul  Probianus,  successor  of 
^lianus,  P.  L.  vol.  viii.,  p.  489. 

2  Before  April  28,  315,  the  date  of  the  document  "  Quoniam 
Lucianum,"  P.  L.  vol.  viii.,  p.  749  ;  Corpus,  p.  202. 

^  Letter  "Ante  paucos,"  ibid.,  p.  489  ;  Corpus,  p.  210. 
^  Letter  "  Perseverare  Menalium,"  ibid.  ;  Corpus,  p.  211. 


p.  119]         CONSTANTINE  AND  DONATISM  93 

tion  Church.  A  formal  debate  took  place,  at  the  end  of 
which  the  emperor  declared  himself  in  favour  of  Caecilian. 
A  communication  of  his  decision  was  at  once  made  to 
the  vicarius  of  Africa,  Eumelius.^ 

Nevertheless,  the  emperor  wished  to  see  if,  in  the  absence 
of  the  two  bishops,  it  would  not  be  possible  to  reunite 
the  two  Churches.  To  this  end,  he  kept  Donatus  and 
Caecilian  in  Italy,  and  sent  two  commissioners  to  Carthage, 
the  Bishops  Eunomius  and  Olympius.'-  These  spent  forty 
days  there,  trying  their  utmost  to  bring  about  an  under- 
standing ;  but  their  mission  of  peace  was  opposed  by  the 
violence  of  the  rebels.  The  bishops  ended  by  declaring 
that  those  alone  were  Catholics  who  were  in  agreement 
with  the  Church  spread  throughout  the  whole  world,  and 
in  consequence  entered  into  communion  with  Caecilian's 
clergy.  The  wiser  spirits  of  the  opposing  party  also  came 
over  to  their  side ;  but  the  majority  remained  inflexible. 
Donatus  managed  to  elude  the  watch  set  over  him,  and 
returned  to  Carthage ;  Caecilian  did  the  same :  and  the 
religious  war  continued  as  fiercely  as  ever. 

Constantine  tried  rude  measures.  The  Donatists  had 
possession  of  a  certain  number  of  churches  in  Carthage. 
He  gave  orders  that  these  churches  should  be  taken  from 
them,^  and,  as  they  resisted,  proceedings  manic  militari 
were  resorted  to.  Nothing  could  have  suited  the  enthusiasts 
of  the  party  better :  the  champions  of  the  martyrs  could 
now  look  forward  to  becoming  martyrs  themselves.  With 
regard  to  the  impression  made  upon  them  by  the  execution 
of  the  law,  we  still  possess  a  curious  document  relating 
to  their  eviction  from  three  churches  in  Carthage.^  During 
the    first    eviction,  no  blood    was    spilt,  but    the   soldiers 

'  Letter  of  November  lo,  316,  produced  at  the  conference  of  411 
(iii.  456,  460,  494,  515-517,  520-530,  532,  535  ;  Brev.  iii.  37,  38,  41). 
Cf.  Aug.  Contra  Cresc.  iii.  16,  67,  82  ;  iv.  9  ;  Ad  Don.  ig,  33,  56 ;  De 
imitate  eccl.  46  ;  Ep.   43,  20  ;  53,  5  ;  76,  2  ;  88,  3  ;  89,  3  ;  105,  8. 

-  Upon  this  mission,  see  Optatus,  i.  26. 

^  A  law  mentioned  by  St  Augustine,  Ep.  88,  3  ;  105,  2,  9  ;  Contra 
lift.  Petiliani,  ii.  205  ;  cf.  Cod.  Thcod,.,  xvi.  6,  2. 

'  "  Sermo  de  passione  SS.  Donati  et  Advocati,"  P.  L.  vol.  viii., 
p.  752. 


94  THE  SCHISMS  [ch.  hi. 

installed  themselves  in  the  church,  and  gave  themselves  to 
riot  and  debauchery ;  in  the  second,  the  Donatists  were 
attacked  and  beaten  ;  one  of  them,  the  Bishop  of  Sicilibba, 
was  wounded  ;  in  the  third,  there  was  a  veritable  massacre  ; 
several  persons  were  killed,  notably  the  Bishop  of  Advocata.^ 
Summary  executions  of  this  kind  took  place,  no  doubt,  in 
many  places ;  a  certain  number  of  people  were  exiled, 
either  by  way  of  precaution,  or  for  having  resisted  eviction.^ 

But  all  proved  ineffectual.  The  schism  spread  from  one 
end  of  Roman  Africa  to  the  other,  in  spite  of  all  the 
decisions,  and  in  spite  of  the  futility  of  the  original  strife. 
People  made  up  their  minds  to  being  unsupported  in 
their  opinions  ;  as  to  the  decisions  of  emperor  or  bishop,  no 
notice  was  taken  of  them ;  communion  with  the  Churches 
over  the  sea  counted  for  nothing.  The  Church  no  longer 
existed  save  in  Africa,  and  in  the  party  over  which 
Donatus  presided.  Donatus  was  not  an  ordinary  man. 
He  was  intelligent  and  well  educated,^  and  of  ascetic 
morality ;  he  ruled  with  a  very  high  hand  the  strange 
following  whose  chief  he  was,  and  among  whom  we  are 
a  little  astonished  to  find  him.  But,  like  Tertullian, 
Donatus  was  very  domineering,  and  in  his  own  world, 
such  as  it  was,  he  reigned  supreme.  His  followers,  who 
were  very  proud  of  him,  treated  him  as  a  being  of  a 
higher  order  than  themselves. 

If  the  schism  flourished  at  Carthage,  and  in  the  pro- 
consular province,  this  was  nothing   in  comparison  with 

1  If  strictly  pressed,  all  these  things  may  have  happened  in  the 
same  church  ;  the  account  is  more  eloquent  than  lucid.  Cf.  the 
conjectures  of  M.  Gauckler  {Comptes  rendus  de  P Academic  des  In- 
scriptions, 1 898,  p.  499),  and  of  M.  Gsell  {Melanges  de  VEcole  de  Rome, 
1899,  p.  60)  upon  the  name  Advocata  and  of  the  bishop  killed  in  this 
affair. 

^  The  comes  Leontius  and  the  dti.v  Ursacius,  who  were  concerned 
in  these  reprisals,  left  a  memory  odious  to  the  Donatists.  Upon 
these  personages,  see  Pallu  de  Lessert,  Pastes  des  provinces  africaines, 
vol.  ii.,  pp.  174,  233. 

3  No  writing  of  his  has  been  preserved.  St  Jerome  {De  viris,  93) 
knew  of  Donatus'  many  writings  pertaining  to  his  heresy  {multa  ad 
suam  haeresim pertinentia),  and  also  a  treatise  on  the  Holy  Spirit,  in 
conformity  with  Arian  doctrine. 


p.  121]  DONATISM  IN  NUMIDIA  95 

its  success  in  Numidia.  There,  almost  everyone  was 
Donatist.  The  Catholics  in  those  parts  had  a  very  hard 
life.  They  were  forced  to  realize  the  emptiness  of 
official  protection.  No  one  wished  to  have  anything  to 
do  with  them,  not  only  from  a  religious  point  of  view, 
but  even  in  ordinary  life.  No  one  spoke  to  them,  no  one 
answered  their  letters ;  everyone  sought  occasions  for 
insulting  them,  and  at  a  pinch  for  murdering  them : 
"  What  communication  can  there  be  between  the  sons  of 
the  martyrs  and  the  followers  of  traitors  ?  " 

The  "  sons  of  the  martyrs  "  had  a  severe  trial  in  320. 
In  that  year,  a  conflict  arose  between  the  Bishop  of  Cirta 
(called  at  this  time  Constantina)  and  one  of  his  deacons. 
This  bishop  was  Silvanus,  one  of  the  original  supporters 
and  leaders  of  Donatism.  The  deacon  Nundinarius  had 
been  excommunicated  by  him — we  do  not  know  for  what 
reason ;  he  claimed  even  to  have  been  pelted  to  some 
extent  with  stones.  He  went  to  complain  to  various 
bishops  in  the  district,  threatening,  if  reparation  were 
not  given  him  in  Constantina,  to  reveal  dangerous  secrets. 
The  prelates,  to  whom  he  appealed,  tried  to  intervene ; 
some  of  them  were  interested  in  securing  the  deacon's 
silence.  But  they  could  not  succeed  in  closing  his  mouth, 
and  the  dispute  ended  in  an  official  enquiry,  over  which 
the  consularis  of  Numidia,  Zenophilus,  presided  in  due 
form.  The  government  was  not  at  all  sorry  to  take  the 
great  Donatist  leaders  red-handed  in  this  way,  and  to 
discredit  them  in  the  public  opinion.  The  matter  was 
examined  at  a  public  hearing,  at  the  request  of 
Nundinarius,  on  December  13,  320. 

The  formal  record  respecting  the  seizure  of  the  church 
at  Cirta,  in  303,  was  produced,  and  it  appeared  from  this  that 
Silvanus,  then  a  sub-deacon,  had  assisted  his  bishop  in 
giving  up  to  the  magistrates  the  sacred  vessels  of  his 
church.  This  enemy  of  traditores,  who  for  years  was 
engaged  in  railing  against  them,  had  been  himself  a 
traditor.  The  fact  was  established  by  evidence,  that 
Silvanus  and  Purpurius,  the  notorious  and  violent  Bishop 
of  Limata,  were  thieves ;  that  they  had  appropriated  jars 


96  THE  SCHISMS  [ch.  hi. 

of  vinegar  belonging  to  the  fiscal  authorities  and  deposited 
in  a  temple,  one  taking  possession  of  the  contents,  and  the 
other  of  the  jars ;  that  Lucilla,  the  great  patroness  of  the 
schism,  had  rewarded  the  services  of  the  Numidian 
bishops,  or  (and  this  was  a  still  more  serious  matter)  that 
some  of  them  had  appropriated  the  alms  which  she  had 
entrusted  to  them  for  distribution  among  the  poor ;  also, 
that  Silvanus  had  received  money  for  the  ordination  of 
a  priest.  Nundinarius  also  brought  forward  evidence  with 
regard  to  the  election  of  Silvanus,  which  proved  the  strong 
dislike  with  which  it  had  been  regarded  by  a  section  of 
the  people,  and  in  addition  a  strange  record,  in  which  the 
consecrators  of  that  bishop  confessed  to  having  been  guilty 
of  various  acts  of  traditio} 

As  a  result  of  this,  a  circumstantial  account  of  the 
whole  affair  was  drawn  up,  of  which  only  a  portion 
remains  to  us.  Silvanus  was  exiled,  it  would  be  hard  to 
say  exactly  for  what  reason ;  the  misdeeds  with  which 
Nundinarius  reproached  him  were,  after  all,  mostly  of  an 
ecclesiastical  character,^  and  did  not  fall  under  the 
operation  of  legal  penalties ;  we  are  led  to  conclude 
that  he  was  considered  as  an  instigator  of  disorder,  and 
that  therefore,  like  several  others,  he  was  banished  in  the 
interests  of  public  tranquillity.  The  Donatists  in  the  time 
of  St  Augustine  said  that,  during  the  "  persecution  "  of 
Ursacius  and  Zenophilus,  Silvanus  was  exiled  for  not 
having  wished  to  unite  with  the  rest  of  the  Church 
{coimnunicare)? 

It  was  not  long  before  he  returned,  and  with  him  the 
other  exiles.  Constantine,  finding  it  impossible  to  subdue 
them  by  severe  measures,  soon  decided,  on  their  request, 
to  let  them  alone.  The  letter  of  May  5,  321,  in  which  he 
notifies  this  decision  to  the  vicarins  Verinus,^  is  as  severe 

'  A  document  already  made  use  of  above,  p,  80. 

2  However,  the  theft  of  jars  of  vinegar  was  a  crime  according  to 
common  law. 

^  Aug.  Contra  Cresc.  iii.  30. 

■*  Petition  of  the  Donatists,  and  letter  to  the  vkatius  :  Coll.  iii. 
541-552  ;  Brev.  iii.  39,  40,  42  ;  Aug.  Ep.  141,  9  ;  Ad  Don.  56. 


p.  124]  ATTITUDE  OF  CONST ANTINE  97 

as  it  could  possibly  be  to  the  Donatists.  It  is  the  same 
with  another  letter  which  he  wrote,  a  little  later,  to  the 
Catholic  bishops,  enjoining  them  to  bear  patiently  with 
the  insults  of  their  liberated  enemies.^  The  emperor  loved 
to  persuade  himself  that  the  agitators  were  but  few  in 
number,  and  could  easily  be  gained  by  methods  of 
kindness.  A  fond  illusion  in  administrative  affairs !  He 
discovered  only  too  soon  upon  what  kind  of  gratitude  he 
could  rely.  At  Constantina,  the  episcopal  city  of  the 
notorious  Silvanus,  he  had  constructed,  at  his  own  cost,  a 
basilica  for  the  use  of  Catholics.  As  soon  as  the  building 
was  finished,  the  Donatists  took  possession  of  it,  and  no 
official  summons,  no  judicial  decisions,  no  imperial  letters, 
could  induce  them  to  give  it  up.  Constantine  found 
himself  obliged  to  build  another  church.  The  best  proof 
we  have  of  the  supremacy  of  the  Donatist  party  in 
Numidia  is,  that  they  had  succeeded  in  depriving  the 
Catholic  clergy  of  their  immunity  from  the  duties  of  the 
curia,  and  other  similar  offices,  a  privilege  which  had 
already  been  granted  to  them  by  the  State.  For  this 
purpose  also  the  emperor  was  obliged  to  interfere.  We 
must  add  that,  while  he  thus  left  the  African  Catholics  to 
their  fate,  he  carefully  preached  to  them,  in  the  most 
edifying  terms,  the  forgiveness  of  injuries  !  -  This  must 
have  been  small  comfort  in  tribulations  which  were  only 
too  real. 

1  Migne,  P.  L.  vol.  viii.,  p.  491  :   Quod  fides. 

2  Letter  "  Cum  summi  Dei,"  Sardica,  February  5,  330  {P.  L.  vol. 
viii.,  p.  531) ;  law  of  the  same  day  in  the  Theodosian  Code,  xvi.  2,  7. 


11 


CHAPTER   IV 

ARIUS  AND  THE  COUNCIL  OF   NIC^A 

The  parishes  of  Alexandria.  Arius  of  Baucalis :  his  doctrine. 
Conflict  with  traditional  teaching.  The  deposition  of  Arius  and 
his  followers.  Arius  is  supported  in  Syria  and  at  Nicomedia. 
His  return  to  Alexandria :  his  Thalia.  Intervention  of  Con- 
stantine.  Debate  on  the  Paschal  question.  The  Council  of 
Nicaea.  Presence  of  the  Emperor.  Arius  again  condemned. 
Settlement  of  the  Meletian  affair,  and  of  the  Paschal  question. 
Compilation  of  the  Creed.  Disciplinary  canons.  Tht  Homoousios. 
First  attempts  at  reaction. 

After  the  martyrdom  of  Peter  (t3i2),  the  Church  of 
Alexandria  had  for  a  short  time  at  its  head  Achillas,  one 
of  the  former  masters  of  the  Catechetical  School.  His 
tenure  of  office  lasted  but  a  few  months,  and  he  was 
succeeded  by  Alexander.  Both  of  them  had  cause  of 
complaint  against  Meletius  and  his  schism  ;  but  Alexander 
had  besides  trouble  with  Arius,  one  of  his  priests,  and 
this  difficulty  was  a  great  event  in  the  history  of  the 
Church. 

The  city  of  Alexandria  contained  at  that  time,  and 
subsequently,  several  churches  controlled  with  a  certain 
measure  of  independence  by  special  priests.  St  Epiphanius  ^ 
mentions  several  of  these  churches — e.g.,  those  of  Dionysius, 
of  Theonas,  of  Pierius,  of  Serapion,  of  Perscxa,  of  Dizya, 
of  Mendidion,  of  Annianus,  and  of  Baucalis,  which,  perhaps, 
do  not  all  date  back  to  the  time  of  which  we  are  now 
speaking.  Over  all  the  members  of  these  churches,  both 
clergy  and  laity,  the  bishop  had  superior  authority.     To 

1  Haer.  Ixix.  3. 


p.  126]        THE  CLERGY  OF  ALEXANDRIA  99 

ensure  the  maintenance  of  this,  and  to  preserve  the  unity 
of  the  flock,  regular  meetings  assembled  the  priests  and 
deacons  together  around  the  supreme  head  of  the  local 
Church. 

But  there  were  decentralizing  influences  at  work.  The 
Alexandrian  priests  remembered  the  time  when  they 
themselves  ordained  their  bishop.^  During  the  episcopate 
of  Alexander,  one  of  them,  named  Kolluthus,  asserted 
once  more  this  power  of  ordination,  and  began  to  hallow 
priests  and  deacons,  without  any  reference  to  his  ecclesi- 
astical superior.  But  quite  another  matter  presented 
itself. 

About  the  year  318,-  the  priest  of  Baucalis,  Arius, 
began  to  excite  much  discussion.  He  had  already  been 
talked  about  with  regard  to  the  Meletian  schism,  with 
which  he  seems  to  have  been  mixed  up  for  some  time. 
After  somewhat  wavering  as  to  his  course,  during  the 
episcopate  of  Peter  and  Achillas,  he  ended  by  regaining 
his  balance  under  Alexander.  He  was  an  elderly  man, 
tall  and  thin,  of  melancholy  looks,  and  an  aspect  which 
showed  traces  of  his  austerities.  He  was  known  to  be  an 
ascetic,  as  could  be  seen  from  his  costume,  which  consisted 
of  a  short  tunic  without  sleeves,  over  which  he  threw  a 
sort  of  scarf,  by  way  of  a  cloak.  His  manner  of  speaking 
was  gentle  :  his  addresses  were  persuasive.  The  conse- 
crated virgins,  who  were  very  numerous  in  Alexandria, 
held  him  in  great  esteem  ;  among  the  higher  clergy  he 
counted  many  staunch  supporters.^ 

^  See  Vol.  I.,  p.  69.  Some  traces  of  this  custom  must  have 
remained,  for  it  is  still  mentioned  in  the  5th  century.  {Apopht/ieg?nata 
Patrum,  ii.  78  ;  Migne,  P.  G.  vol.  Ixv,,  p.  341). 

^  This  is  all  we  can  say,  for  the  chronology  of  these  early  times 
is  very  inexact.  As  it  is  impossible  to  place  all  the  events  between 
the  victory  of  Constantine  over  Licinius  and  the  Council  of  Nicaea, 
we  have  to  go  back  to  a  period  before  the  persecution  of  Licinius. 

^  With  regard  to  the  beginnings  of  the  affair  of  Arius,  apart  from 
the  official  documents,  vv'hich  will  be  quoted  later,  we  have  hardly 
any  serviceable  information.  The  historical  accounts  are  generally 
of  late  date,  hasty,  and  confused.  Yet  some  details  can  be  gleaned 
from  St  Epiphanius  {Hacr.  Ixix,),  and  especially  from  Sozomen,  i.   15, 


100    ARIUS  AND  THE  COUNCIL  OF  NIC^A  [ch.  iv. 

Indeed,  he  had  a  party  and  a  doctrine  of  his  own.  In 
Alexandria,  it  was  not  at  all  an  exceptional  thing  to  have 
a  doctrine  of  one's  own.  We  have  seen  before  what 
could  be  taught,  in  the  days  when  Clement  and  Origen 
ruled  over  the  Catechetical  School.  That  school  was 
still  in  existence,  and  had  abandoned  neither  the  ideas 
nor  the  methods  of  its  former  masters.  But  still  it  was 
only  a  school ;  the  teaching  of  Arius  was  given  in  the 
name  of  the  Church.  And  the  Church  recognized  at  once 
that  it  raised  difficulties.  Later  on,  the  Meletians  claimed 
to  have  had  their  part  in  the  recognition  of  this,  and  said 
that  it  was  they  who  had  awakened  the  bishop's  attention. 
It  seems  more  probable  that  the  opposition  against  Arius 
originated  with  KoUuthus,  one  of  his  colleagues,  perhaps 
the  same  man  with  whom  we  have  just  been  concerned. 

But  however  that  may  be,  Arius  was  called  upon  for 
an  explanation.  During  his  youth,  he  had  attended,  in 
Antioch,  the  school  of  the  celebrated  Lucian.  It  was 
from  this  quarter  that  he  had  derived  his  system,  which 
can  be  summarized  in  a  few  words. 

"God  is  One,  eternal,  and  unbegotten.^  Other 
beings  are  His  creatures,  the  Logos  first  of  all.  Like  the 
other  creatures,  the  Logos  was  taken  out  of  nothingness 
(e^  ovK  ovTODv)  and  not  from  the  Divine  Substance ;  there 
was  a  time  when  He  was  not  (»)i/  ore  ovk  tjv) ;  He  was 
created,  not  necessarily,  but  voluntarily.  Himself  a 
creature  of  God,  He  is  the  Creator  of  all  other  beings, 
and  this  relationship  justifies  the  title  of  God,  which  is 
improperly  given  to  Him.  God  adopted  Him  as  Son  in 
prevision  of  His  merits,  for  He  is  free,  susceptible  of 
change   (rpeTrrog),   and  it   is  by  His   own   will   that    He 

who  had  before  him  documents  which  we  do  not  possess  in  their 
entirety.  According  to  him,  Arius  belonged  at  first  to  the  party  of 
Meletius  ;  having  then  joined  Bishop  Peter  and  been  ordained 
deacon,  he  again  quarrelled  with  his  superior.  Under  Achillas,  he 
may  have  resumed  his  functions,  and  may  even  have  been  promoted 
to  the  dignity  of  the  priesthood.     Cf.  supra,  p.  78. 

1  In  those  days  scarcely  any  difference  was  recognized  between 
yei>rjT6?  (become)  and  ■yewijTos  (begotten),  any  more  than  between  their 
contraries  dy^i/rjTos  and  ayiwy^To^. 


p.  128]   THE  LOGOS-DOCTRINE  AND  ARIANISM    101 

determined  Himself  on  the  side  of  good.  From  this 
sonship  by  adoption  results  no  real  participation  in 
the  Divinity,  no  true  likeness  to  It.  God  can  have  no 
like.  The  Holy  Spirit  is  the  first  of  the  creatures  of  the 
Logos  ;  He  is  still  less  God  than  the  Logos.  The  Logos 
was  made  flesh,  in  the  sense  that  He  fulfilled  in  Jesus 
Christ  the  functions  of  a  soul." 

This  idea  of  the  Word  as  a  creature,  however  remote 
from  received  tradition,  was  yet  not  without  connection 
with  certain  theological  systems  professed  at  an  earlier 
date. 

From  the  time  of  Philo  to  that  of  Origen  and  Plotinus, 
leaving,  of  course.  Gnosticism  out  of  account,  all  religious 
thinkers  formulated  the  idea  of  the  Word  with  cosmo- 
logical  prepossessions  in  their  minds.  Their  abstract  God, 
their  Being  in  Itself,  ineffable  and  inaccessible,  was  so 
absolutely  opposed  to  the  world  of  sense,  that  there  was 
no  means  of  passing  from  one  to  the  other,  except  through 
an  intermediary  who  should  participate  in  both.  The 
Word  proceeded  from  God,  from  the  Divine  Essence;  but 
as  He  contained  in  Himself,  in  addition  to  the  creative 
power,  the  idea,  the  pattern  of  the  creation.  He  fell,  in 
certain  respects,  within  the  category  of  the  created.  How- 
ever like  the  Father  He  might  be  represented  as  being, 
there  were  none  the  less  between  them  differences  of 
capacities.  Under  such  conditions,  the  problem  was  not 
resolved,  but  merely  changed  from  one  point  to  another. 
The  two  ideas  of  Infinite  and  Finite  were  confronted  with 
each  other,  and  in  conflict,  in  the  intermediate  Person, 
The  Word  was  linked  to  God  by  a  mysterious  procession, 
upon  which  there  were  many  discussions  with  much  use 
of  figurative  language,  but  which  no  one  could  clearly 
define.  It  could  not  easily  be  reconciled  either  with 
pure  Monotheism  or  with  the  idea  of  a  distinct  Person, 
two  essential  data  furnished  by  tradition,  and  based  upon 
Scripture. 

At  the  time  of  which  we  are  now  speaking,  it  is 
remarkable  that  everyone  seemed  to  be  in  agreement  to 
escape    from    this    impasse.      The    followers    of    Lucian 


102    ARIUS  AND  THE  COUxNCIL  OF  NIC^A  [ch.  iv. 

resolutely  sacrificed  the  obscure  idea,  in  favour  of  a  clearer 
one ;  they  no  longer  affirmed  any  Procession  from  the 
Substance.  The  whole  Divinity  was  contained  in  the 
Father;  He  alone  was  truly  God.  The  Word  was  the 
First  of  creatures,  but  a  creature.  He  was  no  longer  God, 
He  was  essentially  distinct  from  God.  It  was  thus  that 
they  thought  to  save  Monotheism,  and  also  the  personality 
of  the  pre-existing  Christ.  The  philosophical  difficulty 
was  eliminated,  but  with  it  had  disappeared  the  very 
essence  of  Christianity.  In  complete  contradiction  to 
Arius,  Alexander  and  Athanasius  held  firmly  to  the 
absolute  Divinity  of  the  Word.  At  the  risk  of  appearing 
to  agree  with  the  Modalists,  they  cut  short  all  idea  of 
procession  from  without,  paid  no  heed  to  the  asserted 
necessities  of  cosmology,  maintained,  as  best  they  could, 
the  distinction  of  Persons,  but  preserved  first  and  foremost 
the  identity  of  the  Word  with  God.  The  religious  aspect 
of  the  question  dominated  everything.  The  heavenly 
Being,  incarnate  in  Jesus  Christ,  must  be  God  without 
qualification,  and  not  approximately  so,  or  as  a  way  of 
speaking.  Otherwise,  He  would  not  be  the  Saviour. 
That  such  ideas  were  difficult  to  translate  into  the 
philosophical  language  of  that  day,  is  a  matter  which  they 
perhaps  took  into  consideration,  but  they  scarcely  troubled 
themselves  on  that  account ;  they  were  not  concerned  with 
cosmology,  but  with  religion ;  not  with  scientific  pro- 
prieties, but  with  tradition.^  Besides,  in  treating  of  these 
Divine  matters,  is  one  called  upon  to  explain  everything  ? 
Generatiojieni  eius  quis  enarrabit  ? 

This  state  of  mind  was  not  peculiar  to  the  Bishop  of 
Alexandria.  We  have  seen  instances  of  it  elsewhere,  and 
for  a  long  time  past.  Side  by  side  with  scholastic  theories, 
there  had  always  been,  even  among  highly  cultivated 
persons,  an   opinion   which   respected  these  mysteries  of 

1  Alexander  was  still  influenced,  more  or  less,  by  his  Origenist 
training.  We  see  traces  of  this  in  his  two  letters.  He  was  like 
Eusebius  of  Caesarea,  an  Origenist  who  had  sacrificed  one  of  the  two 
halves  of  the  system  ;  but  he  had  kept  the  good  half— that  which  was 
commended  by  its  agreement  with  tradition. 


p.  131]  ARIANISM  AT  ALEXANDRIA  103 

religion,  which  held  fast  to  the  essential  doctrines,  and 
distrusted  persons  who  threatened  to  compromise  these 
under  pretence  of  reconciling  them  with  other  notions,  or 
throwing  more  light  upon  them.  Bishop  Peter  had 
already  given  an  example  of  this  state  of  mind,  on  the 
throne  of  Alexandria.  After  Alexander,  it  was  very 
clearly  maintained  by  Athanasius,  who  was  already,  at  the 
time  when  our  present  narrative  begins,  a  deacon  and 
adviser  of  his  bishop. 

The  doctrines  of  Arius  were  discussed  first  in  the 
assemblies  of  the  Alexandrian  clergy,  under  the  presidency 
of  Alexander,  who  appears  to  have  directed  the  debates 
with  much  moderation  and  kindness.  The  teaching  given 
in  certain  churches  of  the  city  was  brought  forward,  and  it 
was  shown  to  be  contrary  to  tradition.  The  incriminated 
priests,  being  first  entreated,  and  then  commanded,  to 
renounce  their  innovations,  obstinately  refused.  The 
situation  became  grave.  Upon  one  point  of  principal  im- 
portance, the  superior  clergy  of  Alexandria  were  divided  ; 
some,  with  their  bishop,  taught  the  absolute  Divinity  of 
Christ ;  others,  with  Arius  at  their  head,  would  only  accord 
him  a  divinity  which  was  relative  and  secondary. 

Such  a  state  of  things  could  not  continue.  From  the 
moment  that  Arius  and  his  followers  refused  to  accept  the 
teaching  of  their  bishop,  they  ought  to  have  resigned  their 
functions.  They  did  nothing  of  the  kind,  imagining  no 
doubt  that,  in  view  of  the  independent  position  of  the 
Alexandrian  priests,  they  were  rulers  of  the  Church,  quite 
as  much  as  their  bishop  was,  and  had  no  need  of  his 
instructions.  And  as  their  number  was  comparatively 
large,  Alexander  thought  it  his  duty  to  reinforce  the 
authority  of  his  decision,  by  summoning  the  whole  of  the 
Egyptian  episcopate  to  his  assistance.  These  indeed  were 
beginning  to  be  excited  ;  Arius  had  supporters  amongst 
them.  The  affair  was  not  exclusively  an  Alexandrian 
affair :  it  was  beginning  to  interest  all  within  the  metro- 
politan jurisdiction.  Nearly  a  hundred  bishops  rallied 
round  Alexander  :  two  of  them,  Secundus  of  Ptolemais  in 
Cyrenaica,   and    Theonas    of    Marmarica,    deserted,    and 


104    ARIUS  AND  THE  COUNCIL  OF  NIC.EA  [ch.  iv. 

ranged  themselves  on  the  side  of  Arius.  They  were 
deposed,  and  with  them  six  priests  and  six  deacons  of 
Alexandria :  the  priests  Arius,  Achillas,  Aeithales, 
Carpones,  another  Arius,  and  Sarmatas  ;  and  Euzoi'us, 
Lucius,  Julius,  Menas,  Helladius,  and  Gaius,  the  deacons. 
Mareotis  also,  a  rural  district  surrounding  Lake  Mareotis, 
was  represented  in  the  list  of  the  proscribed  :  either  at  the 
council,  or  shortly  afterwards,  two  priests  from  that 
district.  Chares  and  Pistus,  and  four  deacons,  Serapion, 
Parammon,  Zosimus,  and  Irenaeus,  openly  professed  their 
sympathy  with  Arius,  and  were  deposed,  as  he  was.^ 

There  were  not  many  defections  in  the  Egyptian 
episcopate  as  a  body ;  but  the  Alexandrian  clergy  were 
very  considerably  affected.  Arius  and  his  followers,  like 
Origen  in  bygone  days,  decided  to  leave  Egypt,  passed 
over  to  Palestine  and  settled  at  Ca;sarea.  And,  still  like 
Origen,  they  met  there  with  a  warm  welcome.  For 
several  years  the  learned  Eusebius  had  presided  over  that 
Church.  His  reputation  was  great :  his  historical  works 
and  his  apologies  had  had  time  to  make  their  way.  In 
theology,  his  Origenism  had  not  remained  unyielding.  In 
particular,  he  had  sacrificed  the  eternity  of  creation,  and, 
therefore,  Origen's  reason  for  maintaining  the  eternity  of 
the  Word.  At  bottom,  he  thought  like  Arius ;  but  in 
proportion  as  the  latter  was  clear  and  precise  in  his 
explanations,  so  did  the  Bishop  of  Caesarea  excel  in  cloth- 
ing his  ideas  in  a  diffuse  and  flowing  style,  and  in  using 
many  words  to  say  nothing.  We  can  form  an  idea  of  this 
from  the  elaborations  with  regard  to  the  generation  of  the 
Word,  which  figure  at  the  beginning  of  his  Ecclesiastical 
History?  Other  bishops  in  Palestine,  Phoenicia,  and 
Syria  held  the  same  opinions.^ 

^  See  Alexander's  encyclical  letter,  'Yivh%  cnhiiaTos,  and  the  document 
annexed,  Kara^ecns  'Apeiov  (Migne,  P.  G.  vol.  xviii.,  pp.  573,  581).  The 
encyclical  was  signed  by  seventeen  priests  and  twenty-four  deacons  of 
Alexandria,  nineteen  priests  and  twenty  deacons  of  Mareotis.  At  the 
head  of  the  priests  of  Alexandria  signs  a  certain  Kolluthus,  who  may 
well  have  been  the  person  of  whom  mention  has  already  been  made. 

-  H.  E.  i.  2. 

^  In  his  letter  to  Eusebius  of  Nicomedia,  Arius  mentions,  besides 


V.  133-4]  EUSEBIUS  AT  NICOMEDIA  105 

The  Bishop  of  Caesarea  was  not  at  that  time,  as  he 
became  afterwards,  a  personage  in  favour  at  court,  and 
of  assured  position.  This  part  was  filled  by  another 
Eusebius,  an  aged  prelate  well  versed  in  intrigue,  who  had 
succeeded  in  transferring  himself  from  Berytus,  where  he 
had  first  exercised  his  episcopal  functions,  to  the  more 
important  see  of  Nicomedia.  There,  in  close  proximity 
to  the  court,  in  high  favour  with  the  Empress  Constantia, 
the  sister  of  Constantine  and  the  wife  of  Licinius,  he  had 
made  for  himself  a  position,  the  strength  of  which  was 
soon  felt.  He  was  besides  a  theologian,  and  a  disciple  of 
Lucian  of  Antioch.  He  shared  all  the  ideas  of  Arius,  and 
for  a  long  time  had  been  on  the  coldest  of  terms  with  his 
colleague  of  Alexandria.  The  party  could  never  have 
dreamed  of  more  powerful  patronage.  Arius  wrote  to 
Eusebius  from  Palestine,^  and  lost  no  time  in  joining  him. 

The  Bishop  of  Nicomedia  set  himself  at  once  to  work  : 
he  inundated  the  Orient  and  Asia-Minor  with  letters 
addressed  to  the  bishops,"  in  order  to  persuade  them  to 
range  themselves  on  the  side  of  Arius,  and  to  support  him 
against  his  own  bishop,by  demanding  of  the  latter  a 
reversal  of  his  decision.  Arius  drew  up  an  explanation  of 
his  doctrine,  in  the  form  of  a  letter  addressed  to  Alex- 
ander^; and  this  was  circulated  in  the  hope  of  gaining 
many  adhesions.  Eusebius  of  Caesarea  interposed  several 
times  on  his  behalf  with  the  Bishop  of  Alexandria.* 

the  Bishop  of  Cresarea,  those  of  Lydda  (Aetius),  of  Tyre  (Paulinus),  of 
Berytus  (Gregory),  of  Laodicea(Theodotus),  of  Anazarba  (Athanasius), 
"and'all  the  Easterns."  Yet  he  himself  admits  that  the  bishops  of 
Antioch  (Philogonius),  of  Jerusalem  (Macarius),  and  of  Tripoli 
(Hellanicus)  were  opposed  to  him.     There  were  others  also. 

'  Epiphanius,  Ixix.  6  ;  Theodoret,  i.  5.  It  is  in  this  letter  that  he 
gives  Eusebius  of  Nicomedia  the  name  oi  colhicianist  {uvWovKiaviffra). 

'^  One  of  these  letters,  addressed  to  Paulinus  of  Tyre,  has  been 
preserved  in  Theodoret,  //.  E.  i.  5.  Paulinus  seems  to  have  had  some 
difficulty  in  taking  a  side. 

■^  Athanasius,  Dc  sy?wdis,  16  ;  Epiphanius,  Ixix.  7,  8. 

*  Letter  mentioned  by  Eusebius  of  Nicomedia,  in  the  document 
quoted  above,  note  i  ;  another  letter,  of  which  some  fragments  appear 
in  the  Acts  of  the  Vllth  CEanncnical  Council^  Mansi  Concilia^  vol. 
xiii.,  p.  317.     Cf.  Sozomcn,  i.  15  ad  fin. 


106    ARIUS  AND  THE  COUNCIL  OF  NIC.EA  [en.  iv. 

Alexander,  meanwhile,  had  not  been  idle.  He  wrote 
to  all  the  bishops,  protesting  against  the  interference  of 
Eusebius  of  Nicomedia,  "who  deems  himself  entrusted 
with  the  care  of  the  whole  Church,  ever  since,  abandoning 
Berytus,  he  cast  his  spell  over  the  Church  of  Nicomedia, 
without  anyone  daring  to  punish  him  for  so  doing,"  and 
poses  as  the  protector  of  Arius  and  his  party.  Alexander 
then  gave  the  names  of  the  condemned  persons,  and 
summarized,  in  a  brief  outline,  the  principal  features  of 
their  teaching,  "  more  pernicious  than  the  heresies  of  the 
past,  the  fore-runner  of  Antichrist."  To  this  letter  were 
added  the  signatures  of  all  the  clergy  who  had  remained 
faithful,  both  in  Alexandria  and  Mareotis.^  A  copy  was 
sent  to  Pope  Silvester  ^ ;  others  to  the  Bishop  of  Antioch,^ 
Philogonius,  to  Eustathius,  Bishop  of  Berea,  and  to  many 
besides.  Just  as  Arius  was  collecting  signatures  for  his 
profession  of  faith,  so  in  the  same  way  the  messengers  of 
Alexander  were  obtaining  signatures  everywhere  for  his 
protest  against  it.  He  gained  many  adherents  from  Syria, 
Lycia,  Pamphylia,  Asia,  Cappadocia,  and  the  neighbouring 
countries.  He  wrote  *  a  little  later  to  another  Alexander, 
Bishop  of  Byzantium,  to  obtain  his  support  also.  In  this 
letter  he  complains  of  the  disturbances  which  the  followers 
of  Arius  are  causing  him  in  Alexandria.  Women  were 
mixing  themselves  up  with  the  affair ;  I  have  already  said 
that  Arius  was  in  high  favour  with  the  virgins.  These 
obstinate  and  argumentative  ladies  raised  one  quibble  after 

^  It  is  this  letter  ('E;'6s  crd>p.aTos)  {P.  G.  vol.  xviii.,  p.  572)  which  is 
called  the  Tome  of  Alexander.  Dr  E.  Schwartz  {Nachrtchteft,  1905, 
p.  265)  wishes  to  reserve  this  title  for  a  document  preserved  in  a 
Syriac  MS.  in  the  British  Museum  {Add.  12,  156,  copied  in  562),  and 
published  by  P.  Martin  (Pitra,  Analecta  Sacra.,  vol.  iv.,  p.  196  ; 
Schwartz  gives  a  Greek  translation  of  it).  This  document  seems  to 
be  derived  from  a  copy  of  the  Tome,  addressed  to  a  Bishop  Meletius 
(he  can  hardly  be  the  person  spoken  of  by  Eusebius,  H.  E.  vii.  32, 
who  speaks  of  him  as  if  he  were  dead  ;  see  rather  Athanasius,  Ep. 
ad  episcopos  Aegyptios,  8)  ;  topographical  references  of  a  very  doubt- 
ful character  have  been  added  to  it,  as  well  as  the  signature,  also 
suspect,  of  the  Bishop  of  Antioch,  Philogonius. 

2  Quoted  in  a  letter  of  Liberius,  in  354  (Jaffe,  212). 

^  Theodoret,  //.  E.  i.  3.  *  P.  G.  vol.  xviii.,  p.  548. 


p.  130]  THE  THALIA  107 

another  against  their  bishop.  They  held  schismatical 
meetings.  In  short,  the  general  disorder,  which  the 
exodus  of  the  condemned  persons  had  not  appeased, 
became  every  day  more  extreme.^ 

The  return  of  Arius  brought  matters  to  a  crisis.  A 
synod,  assembled  in  Bithynia  by  the  efforts  of  Eusebius  of 
Nicomedia,  had  pronounced  that  the  dissenting  party 
ought  to  be  admitted  to  communion,  and  that  Alexander 
should  be  entreated  to  receive  them.  As  he  still  refused, 
the  supporters  of  Arius  in  Phoenicia  and  in  Palestine, 
Eusebius  of  Caesarea,  Paulinus  of  Tyre,  Patrophilus  of 
Scythopolis,  and  several  others,  in  their  turn  assembled  in 
council,  and  authorized  Arius  and  his  adherents  to  resume 
their  functions,  while  remaining,  however,  at  the  same  time 
under  obedience  to  their  bishop.- 

This  latter  condition  was  difficult  to  fulfil.  Arius  and 
his  friends  returned,  counting  apparently  upon  the  number 
and  energy  of  their  supporters  to  force  the  hand  of  their 
ecclesiastical  superior.  Nothing  was  neglected  which  could 
excite  the  populace  and  secure  their  support  for  the 
opposition  party.  Pamphlets  were  circulated,  and  even 
songs.  Arius  had  composed  a  long  rhapsody,  in  which 
the  beauties  of  his  metaphysics  were  extolled.  This  is 
what  is  known  as  his  Thalia,  and  several  fragments  of  it 
have  been  preserved.     It  begins  as  follows  : — 

According  to  the  faith  of  God's  elect. 

Who  comprehend  God, 

Of  the  holy  children, 

The  orthodox, 

Who  have  received  the  Holy  Spirit  of  God, 

This  is  what  I  have  learnt 

From  those  who  possess  wisdom, 

Well-educated  people, 

Instructed  by  God, 

Skilled  in  all  knowledge. 

It  is  in  their  footsteps,  that  I  walk,  even  I, 

That  I  walk  as  they  do, 

'  Arius  had  perhaps  already  returned,  when  the  letter  was  written. 
-  Sozomen,  i.   15,  summariEes   here   synodical  documents   which 
have  not  come  down  to  us. 


108    ARIUS  AND  THE  COUNCIL  OF  NIC^A  [ch.  iv. 

I,  who  am  so  much  spoken  of, 

I,  who  have  suffered  so  much 

For  the  glory  of  God, 

I,  who  have  received  from  God 

The  wisdom  and  knowledge  which  I  possess. 

The  dock-labourers,  the  sailors,  all  the  idle  and  the 
rabble  in  the  streets,  knew  these  songs,  and  shouted  them 
into  the  ears  of  Alexander's  faithful  followers.  Hence 
ensued  brawls  without  end. 

Outwardly,  the  episcopate  was  greatly  divided.  Each 
of  the  two  parties  boasted  of  adhesions  received.  Letters 
in  favour  of  Arius  were  formed  into  a  collection  ^ ;  the 
same  was  done  with  those  in  support  of  the  Bishop  of 
Alexandria."  A  rhetorician  of  Cappadocia,  called  Asterius, 
who  had  apostatized  during  the  persecution,  and  could  not 
enter  the  ranks  of  the  clergy  on  that  account,  spent  his 
time  travelling  through  the  East,  giving  lectures  to  explain 
and  defend  the  new  theology.  The  public  began  to  take 
interest  in  these  questions,  even  the  pagan  public,  who, 
of  course,  took  advantage  of  this  opportunity  to  amuse 
themselves  at  the  expense  of  the  Christians  and  of  their 
beliefs.  The  quarrels  of  Arius  and  Alexander  were  even 
echoed  in  the  theatres.^ 

It  was  in  this  state  of  disturbance  that  Constantine 
found  the  Eastern  Church,  when  his  victory  over  Licinius 
brought  him  into  close  relations  with  it. 

On  his  arrival  at  Nicomedia,  he  had  at  first  intended 
to  visit  the  "  Orient "  *  immediately ;  and  among  the 
reasons  which  prevented  him,  these  ecclesiastical  disputes 
held  an  important  place.  The  accounts  given  him  with 
regard  to  that  at  Alexandria  astonished  and  distressed 
him.  He  had  counted  upon  the  assistance  of  the  Greek 
episcopate   to  help  him  in  reducing   the  African  schism, 

^  Athanasius,  De  synodis^  ij. 

'^  I  cannot  accept  as  authentic  the  Council  of  Antioch  in  324,  of 
which  Dr  E.  Schwartz  {Nachrichten,  1905,  p.  171  et  seq.)  publishes  a 
supposed  synodical  letter  addressed  to  Alexander  of  Byzantium  (N^as 
'Fw/xrjs)  from  a  Syriac  MS.  at  Paris,  No.  62. 

3  Eusebius,  V.  C.  i.  61. 

^  By  which  is  meant  here,  Syria  and  Egypt. 


p.  138]  ATTITUDE  OF  CONSTANTINE  109 

which  was  a  grievous  anxiety  in  his  religious  policy, 
and  lo  !  the  Greek  bishops  were  themselves  divided.  And 
why?  For  a  mere  nothing.  Alexander  had  been  im- 
prudent enough  to  puzzle  his  priests  with  idle  questions 
respecting  a  text  from  the  Bible  ^  upon  subjects  of  no 
religious  importance ;  and  Arius,  instead  of  keeping  his 
own  opinions  to  himself,  had  expressed  and  defended 
them  with  extreme  obstinacy.  Was  this  of  all  others 
the  time  to  devote  oneself  to  such  disputations  ?  Could 
they  not  let  such  irritating  and  insoluble  questions  sleep, 
and  live  at  peace  in  Christian  brotherhood  ? 

The  emperor  wrote  a  letter  in  this  sense,  addressed 
jointly  to  Alexander  and  to  Arius.  It  was  carried  to 
them  by  the  hand  of  his  faithful  adviser  in  matters 
ecclesiastical,  Hosius,  Bishop  of  Cordova,  who  had  fol- 
lowed him  to  the  East.  Constantine  implored  them  both, 
in  moving  terms,  to  be  reconciled  with  each  other,  and 
so  to  restore  peace  to  the  Church,  and  tranquillity  to 
their  sovereign. 

In  Constantine's  method  of  dealing  with  this  affair, 
we  recognize  at  once  the  ruler  and  administrator  favour- 
able towards  the  Christian  religion,  desirous  even  that 
the  whole  world  should  accept  it,  and  that  in  this  way 
a  moral  unity  (he  expressly  says  so)  might  be  established, 
but  at  the  same  time  quite  incapable  of  interesting  him- 
self in  metaphysical  questions.  The  kind  of  Christianity 
which  the  government  wanted  at  the  time  was  the 
religion  of  the  Supreme  Being  {siiinnia  dhnnitas),  crystal- 
lized in  the  faith  in  Christ  as  Revealer  and  Saviour,  and 
in  the  observance  of  the  religious  and  moral  precepts 
inculcated  by  the  Church  in  His  name.  As  for  puzzling 
one's  brains  with  regard  to  the  smnma  divinitas,  and 
its  intimate  relationship  with  Christ,  it  might  be  all  very 
well  as  a  subject  of  study  for  private  individuals  ;  different 
opinions  might  be  held  on  such  a  subject ;  but  what 
was  the  use  of  producing  them  in  public,  and  especially 
with   such   persistence   as   to   provoke  opposition  and  to 

'  Proverbs  viii.  22. 


110   ARIUS  AND  THE  COUNCIL  OF  NIC^A  [ch.  iv. 

give  rise  to  quarrels  ?  ^  The  State  could  be  interested 
in  such  matters  only  in  so  far  as  they  affected  the  public 
welfare. 

Hosius,  who  was  a  practical  man,  may  have  been, 
at  bottom,  of  the  same  opinion  as  the  emperor.  Neverthe- 
less, when  he  arrived  at  his  destination,  he  at  once 
perceived  that  the  imperial  exhortation  was  not  sufficient 
to  calm  the  troubled  spirits.  It  might  perhaps  have 
succeeded  with  Westerns,  whose  theological  needs  were 
limited.  But  with  Greeks,  who  were  born  thinkers, 
talkers,  and  wranglers,  it  was  quite  another  matter.  The 
question  could  not  be  suppressed ;  it  was  necessary  to 
decide  it. 

However,  advantage  was  taken  of  the  visit  of  Hosius, 
to  settle  certain  local  affairs.  It  was  undoubtedly  at 
that  time  that  Kolluthus  was  condemned  and  his  ordina- 
tions declared  invalid.  At  all  events,  among  them  was 
annulled  that  of  a  certain  Ischyras,  who  came  to  the 
surface  again  later  and  made  some  stir.^ 

On  his  return  to  Nicomedia,  Hosius  informed  the 
emperor  of  the  state  of  affairs,  and  Constantine  decided 
to  summon  a  great  council,  which,  as  they  both  thought, 
would  succeed  in  restoring  peace. 

The  affair  of  Arius  was  not  the  only  one  which 
excited  trouble.  There  were  also  the  schism  of  Meletius 
in  Egypt  and  the  dispute  on  the  calculation  of  Easter. 
The  substance  of  the  latter  question  may  be  stated  as 
follows  3 : — 

The  dispute  in  Pope  Victor's  time  between  the 
Church  of  Rome  and  the  Churches  of  Asia  had  ended  in 

1  We  may  note,  in  the  imperial  letter,  this  curious  comparison  : 
"  Philosophers  themselves  (of  a  school)  are  all  in  agreement  as  to 
their  way  of  looking  at  things  idoy/j.a')  ;  if  sometimes  they  are  divided 
with  regard  to  some  proof,  this  difference  of  opinion  does  not 
prevent  them  from  agreeing  as  to  essentials"  (Eusebius,  V.  C.  ii.  71). 

2  Athanasius,  AJ>oL  contra  Ar.  74.  According  to  Socrates,  iii.  7, 
Hosius  was  consulted  then  upon  the  questions  of  essence  and  of 
hypostasis,  with  regard  to  the  Sabellians  and  their  dogma. 

3  See  my  memoir,  "La  question  de  la  Paque  au  concile  de  Nicee," 
in  the  Revue  des  questions  historiqtics^  vol.  xxviii.  (1880),  p.  i. 


p.  141]  THE  DATE  OF  EASTER  111 

favour  of  the  Roman  use.  Everybody  agreed  that  the 
Feast  of  the  Resurrection  of  Christ  should  take  place 
on  the  Sunday  after  the  Jewish  Passover.  At  Antioch 
they  allowed  the  Jews  to  fix  the  time  of  the  14th  of 
Nisan — that  is,  of  the  full  moon  at  which  the  feast 
was  celebrated.  The  month  of  Nisan  being  the  first 
lunar  month,  it  might  be  placed  differently,  according  as 
the  preceding  year  had  consisted  of  twelve  or  thirteen 
months.  This  latter  point  was  decided  by  the  Jewish 
authorities  according  to  their  own  methods.  At  Alex- 
andria they  did  not  trouble  themselves  about  the  Jews ; 
they  made  their  own  calculations  for  Easter,  and  the 
fluctuation  of  the  first  lunar  month  was  put  an  end  to 
by  the  special  regulation  that  the  feast  celebrated 
after  the  full  moon  must  be  celebrated  also  after  the 
vernal  equinox,  fixed  at  March  21.  As  the  Jews — at 
that  time,  at  least — took  no  account  of  the  vernal  equinox, 
the  result  of  this  was  that  their  14th  of  Nisan  might  occur 
a  month  before  that  of  the  Alexandrians,  and  that  the 
Church  of  Antioch,  which  was  accustomed  to  adopt  it, 
might  also  find  itself  a  month  in  advance  of  the  great 
metropolis  of  Egypt.  Both  of  the  rival  methods  of 
calculating  had  their  adherents,  and,  strange  as  it  may 
appear  to  us,  even  passionate  adherents. 

Great    councils    were    no    novelties    to    the    Eastern 
episcopate.^     They  had  seen  many  of  them  in  the  middle 

^  The  formal  records  of  the  Council  of  Nicaea,  if  any  were  drawn 
up,  have  not  been  preserved.  The  account  given  by  Eusebius  ( V.  C. 
iii.  22),  is  the  only  one  emanating  from  a  witness  who  was  present ; 
Eustathius  of  Antioch  (Theodoret,  i.  7),  and  Athanasius  (especially 
the  De  decretis  Nicaenis  and  the  epistle  Ad  Afros),  who  had  also 
been  present  at  the  council,  report  but  few  details  regarding  it. 
Under  the  Emperor  Zeno  (476-491),  a  certain  Gelasius,  a  native  of 
Cyzicus,  compiled  in  Bithynia  a  history  of  the  council,  in  which  he 
inserted  a  number  of  official  documents.  The  narrative  part  of  his 
collection  is  borrowed  from  Eusebius,  from  Rufinus  (a  Greek 
Rufinus  translated  by  another  Gelasius),  from  Socrates,  and  from 
Theodoret.  These  authors  (with  the  exception  of  Rufinus)  have 
supplied  him  with  many  documents  ;  he  has  also  borrowed  a  certain 
number  from  a  previous  collection,  made  by  a  priest  named  John, 
but  otherwise  unknown.     He  had,  besides,  at  his  disposal,  extracts 


112    ARIUS  AND  THE  COUNCIL  OF  NIC^A  [ch.  iv. 

of  the  3rd  century,  and  since  then,  at  which  the  bishops 
of  Eastern  Asia-Minor  and  of  the  Syrian  provinces  had 
assembled  at  Antioch  or  elsewhere.  Alexandria  itself 
had  also  v/itnessed  from  time  to  time  assemblies  of  the 
Egyptian  and  Libyan  episcopate ;  one  of  these  local 
councils  had  been  summoned  specially  with  regard  to 
Arius.  These  two  groups,  however,  had  never  been 
united  ;  the  "  Eastern  "  bishops  had  never  deliberated  with 
those  of  Egypt.  On  the  present  occasion,  the  assemblage 
was  much  larger.  To  the  Egyptians  and  to  the  Easterns 
were  added  bishops  from  the  whole  of  Asia-Minor,  alike 
from  the  ancient  province  (now  a  diocese)  of  Asia,  and 
from  Cappadocia,  Pontus,  and  Galatia.  The  provinces 
beyond  the  Bosphorus  were  also  represented,  although 
in  a  smaller  proportion.  Still  less  numerous  was  the 
representation  of  the  Latin  countries :  one  Pannonian 
bishop ;  one  from  Gaul,  the  Bishop  of  Die  ;  one  bishop 
from    Calabria ;    the    Bishop    of    Carthage ;    and    finally, 

made  by  himself  during  his  life  at  Cyzicus,  from  a  book  which  had 
belonged  to  Dalmatius,  the  Bishop  of  that  city,  and  a  member  of 
the  Council  of  Ephesus  in  431  ;  this  book  was  an  artificial  composi- 
tion, claiming  to  be  an  exact  reproduction  of  conversations  between 
various  philosophers  and  the  members  of  the  council.  See,  on  this 
subject,  Gerhard  Loeschcke,  Das  Syntagma  dcs  Gelasius  Cyziccnus, 
a  study  which  appeared  in  the  Rhewisches  Museum,  1905,  1906 ; 
the  author  is  much  too  favourable  to  Gelasius  and  to  the  book  of 
Dalmatius.  The  text  of  Gelasius  was  divided  into  three  books  ;  the 
first  two  are  in  Migne's  Patrologia  gracca,  vol.  Ixxxv.,  pp.  1 192-1344  ; 
for  the  third,  of  which  Mai  {Spic.  Rom.  vol.  vi.,  p.  603)  has  only 
given  the  table  of  contents,  with  some  insignificant  fragments,  we  must 
have  recourse  to  Ceriani,  Motmmenta  sacra  et  profana,  vol.  i.,  p. 
129.  That  which  Migne  gives  as  Book  III.  consists  of  three  letters 
of  Constantine,  the  first  of  which  is  really  an  extract  from  this  book, 
as  Mai's  index  describes  it  and  as  Ceriani  has  published  it.  It  seems 
to  have  been  longer  {cf.  Photius,  cod.  88),  and  may  have  comprised  the 
two  others.  As  to  the  signatures  of  Nicasa,  of  which  recensions 
exist  in  various  languages  {Patrum  Nicacnorum  tiomina,  ed.  Teubner 
[Gelzer,  Hilgenfeld,  Cuntz],  1898),  they  come  to  us,  when  completely 
analyzed,  not  from  an  official  record  simply  recopied,  but  from  an 
arrangement  in  which  the  names  have  been  distributed  in  their 
geographical  order.  This  arrangement  appears  to  belong  to  the 
end  of  the  4th  century. 


p.  143]  NUMBERS  AT  THE  COUNCIL  113 

Hosius  of  Cordova,  whom  we  may  consider  as  the 
representative  of  the  Spanish  episcopate,  and  two  Roman 
priests,  sent  by  Pope  Silvester.  Even  from  countries 
situated  on  the  extreme  frontiers,  from  the  Black  Sea 
and  from  Persia,  came  several  bishops.  Thus  there 
were  to  be  seen  at  Nicaea  the  Bishop  of  Pityus,  in  the 
Caucasus,  the  bishop  from  the  kingdom  of  Bosphorus,'- 
two  from  Armenia  Magna,  and  lastly,  one  from  the 
kingdom  of  Persia. 

The  exact  number  of  the  members  of  the  Council  of 
Nicaea  was  not  fixed  at  the  outset  by  official  documents. 
Eusebius  of  Ca^sarea,'^  who  took  part  in  this  assembly, 
says  that  there  were  more  than  250;  another  member  of 
the  council,  Eustathius  of  Antioch,^  speaks  of  270, 
Constantine  of  more  than  300.^  This  last  figure  is  that 
of  St  Athanasius,  of  Pope  Julius,  and  of  Lucifer  of 
Caliaris.  In  the  course  of  time  it  was  increased  a  little, 
to  arrive  at  the  symbolic  number  of  318,  which  was  that 
of  the  servants  of  Abraham  in  his  struggle  against  the 
confederate  kings,^  and  tradition  has  so  fixed  it.  The 
lists  which  have  come  down  to  us  only  mention  220 
names,  fourteen  of  which  are  the  names  of  diorepiscopi. 
It  is  possible  that  these  lists  may  be  incomplete,  and, 
in  particular,  that  the  names  of  episcopal  sees,  the 
occupants  of  which  were  only  represented  by  simple 
priests  or  other  clerics,''  were  not  preserved  at  all,  except 
in  the  case  of  the  Church  of  Rome. 

^  This  is  no  doubt  the  Scythia  of  which  Eusebius  speaks,  V.  C. 
iii.  7. 

-   V.  C.  iii.  8.  •■'  In  Prov.  viii.  22  (Theodoret,  i.  7). 

■*  Letter  to  the  Church  of  Alexandria,  Socrates,  i.  6. 
^  Genesis,  xiv.  14. 

^  The  great  authority  of  the  First  CEcumenical  Council  caused  it 
soon  to  become  a  theme  for  legends.  By  the  end  of  the  4th 
century,  various  things,  more  or  less  doubtful,  were  related  with 
regard  to  it  ;  and  these  again,  in  the  following  century,  already  found 
a  place  in  books  of  history.  The  private  legislators,  to  whom  we 
owe  so  many  apocryphal  collections  of  canon  law,  at  first  sheltered 
themselves  under  the  pretended  authority  of  the  apostles  {cf.  Vol.  I., 
p.  388)  ;  now,  we  shall  see  them  also  claim  authority  from  the  three 
hundred  and  eighteen  Fathers. 

II  H 


114    ARIUS  AND  THE  COUNCIL  OF  NIC.EA  [ch.  iv. 

In  the  spring  of  the  year  325,  all  this  multitude  was 
making  its  way,  either  in  the  carriages  of  the  imperial 
post,  or  on  horses  supplied  by  the  emperor,  towards  the 
appointed  meeting-place,  which  was  the  town  of  Nic^a,  in 
Bithynia,  close  to  the  imperial  residence  at  Nicomedia. 

These  prelates  were  of  widely  different  degrees  of 
education.  The  most  learned  was  undoubtedly  Eusebius 
of  Csesarea.  Several  others,  such  as  Alexander, 
Eustathius  of  Antioch,  and  Marcellus  of  Ancyra,  are 
known  to  us  from  writings  in  the  anti-Arian  controversy ; 
these  questions,  which  had  already  been  discussed  for 
several  years,  must  have  been  familiar  to  the  greater 
part  of  them.  Some  of  the  number,  like  Leontius  of 
Csesarea  in  Cappadocia,  and  James  of  Nisibis,  were 
celebrated  for  their  virtues.  But  those  who  were  looked 
for  most  eagerly  were  the  confessors  during  the  Great 
Persecution,  Paul  of  Neocaesarea  in  Syria,  with  his  burnt 
hands,  Amphion  of  Epiphania,  and  the  Egyptians 
Paphnutius  and  Potamon,  both  blinded  in  one  eye  and 
lame  from  their  sufferings  in  the  mines.  If  this  great 
convocation  excited  the  curiosity  of  the  faithful,  and  even 
of  the  pagans,  it  could  not  have  produced  a  slighter 
impression  upon  those  who  composed  it.  Never  before 
had  the  Church  seen  such  a  review  of  its  official  rulers. 

But,  although  he  was  an  actual  witness  and  actor  in 
this  scene,  Eusebius  scarcely  gives  us  any  information  as 
to  the  details  of  it.  What  seems  to  have  struck  him  most 
of  all  was  the  appearance  of  the  emperor  at  the  first 
meeting,  and  the  State  banquet  at  which  he  entertained 
the  members  of  the  council. 

In  a  great  hall  of  the  palace,  seats  were  placed  to  right 
and  left ;  the  bishops  took  their  places  there,  and  waited. 
Soon  appeared  several  Christian  officers,  and  then  the 
emperor,  clothed  in  the  purple  and  in  the  magnificent 
costume  which  was  then  in  fashion.  It  was  indeed  a 
solemn  moment — this  meeting  between  the  head  of  the 
Roman  State  and  the  representatives  of  the  Christian 
communities,  who  had  been  so  long  and  so  severely 
persecuted.      Now   the   evil    days   were    over :    Galerius, 


p.  146]       THE  OPENING  OF  THE  COUNCIL  115 

Maximin,  Licinius,  all  the  enemies  of  Christ,  were  dead. 
But  of  the  blows  which  they  had  struck  the  recollection 
was  still  vivid,  and  of  those  present  more  than  one  bore 
the  marks  of  them.  The  emperor  of  to-day,  the  puissant 
prince  who  for  twenty  years  had  defended  the  frontiers  and 
kept  the  barbarians  at  a  distance,  who  had  but  just  now 
restored  the  unity  of  the  empire,  and  was  holding  it 
complete  and  undivided  in  his  hand,  was  also  the  restorer 
of  religious  liberty — nay  more,  he  was  the  protector  and 
the  friend  of  the  Christians. 

Constantine  took  his  place  at  the  head  of  the  hall. 
The  bishop  nearest  to  him,  on  his  right  hand,^  perhaps 
Eusebius  of  Ca^sarea,  perhaps  the  Bishop  of  Antioch, 
better  entitled  to  it  by  the  superiority  of  his  See,  then 
spoke,  and  expressed  to  him  the  feelings  of  the  assembl)% 
The  emperor  replied  in  Latin,  and  his  speech  was 
immediately  translated  into  Greek.-  After  this  the 
debates  began.  The  emperor  followed  them  carefully, 
and  sometimes  joined  in  them. 

In  the  intervals,  the  members  of  the  council  were  his 
guests  at  the  festivities  by  which  he  celebrated  the 
twentieth  year  of  his  reign.  On  this  occasion,  Eusebius 
of  Ca^sarea  pronounced  an  eloquent  panegyric.  The 
emperor  gave  a  great  banquet  to  the  bishops.  On  their 
way  to  it,  the  guard  presented  arms ;  the  confessors 
saw,  as  they  had  seen  in  other  days,  the  glint  of  steel, 
but  now  there  was  no  longer  cause  for  fear.     Many  of 

^  Eusebius  does  not  specify  the  name.  The  author  of  the  index 
of  the  chapters  of  his  Life  of  Constantine  (iii.  ii)  thought  that  it  was 
the  Bishop  of  Citsarea  himself;  Theodoret  (i.  6)  mentions  Eustathius 
of  Antioch.  Hosius,  as  one  of  the  immediate  attendants  on  the 
emperor,  was  scarcely  marked  out  for  this  honour.  The  Bishop  of 
Antioch  had  already  presided  over  the  Councils  of  Ancyra  and 
Neoceesarea ;  it  was  natural  that  he  should  preside  over  that  of 
Niccca.  There  were  not  yet  any  fixed  rules  of  precedence  ;  later  on, 
Alexandria,  in  these  meetings,  took  precedence  of  Antioch.  At  the 
time  we  are  now  speaking  of,  Antioch  was  the  residence  of  the  Conies 
of  the  Onens,  a  sort  of  viceroy  to  whom  Egypt  was  subject  as  well  as 
Syria. 

^  Eusebius,  V.  C.  iii.  12,  has  preserved  the  emperor's  speech. 


116    ARIUS  AND  THE  COUNCIL  OF  NICE  A  [ch.  iv. 

them  asked  themselves  if  it  were  all  a  dream,  or  if  they 
were  already  in  the  kingdom  of  Christ. 

Apart  from  these  celebrations,  the  council  was  busy  at 
work.  The  affair  of  Arius  came  first.  The  question  at 
issue  was  to  know  whether  the  sentence  already  passed 
upon  him  by  his  own  bishop  would  be  confirmed.  Being 
called  upon  to  justify  himself,  Arius  and  his  followers 
explained  their  position  very  frankly,  so  much  so  that 
Alexander  had  no  difficulty  in  proving  how  well-founded 
his  decision  was.  The  support  which  the  Bishop  of 
Nicomedia  and  his  other  partisans  gave  to  the  priest  of 
Alexandria  proved  no  help  to  him.  Few  persons  in  that 
assembly  were  disposed  to  listen  calmly  to  such  proposi- 
tions as  these :  "  There  was  a  time  when  the  Son  of  God 
was  not ;  He  was  taken  out  of  nothing ;  He  is  a  creature, 
a  being  susceptible  of  change,"  etc.  The  sentence  of 
Alexander  was  not  only  sustained,  but  confirmed.  The 
condemned  ecclesiastics  held  firm  ;  it  was  not  possible  to 
reclaim  one  of  them. 

Another  Egyptian  affair,  that  of  Meletius  and  his 
schism,  was  then  examined.  The  council  recognized  that 
Meletius  was  most  seriously  in  the  wrong.  Nevertheless, 
in  its  desire  for  peace — a  desire  which  was  certainly 
favoured  by  the  emperor — an  arrangement  was  adopted, 
by  which  the  Meletian  clergy  might  still  be  allowed  to 
exercise  their  functions,  and  to  work  with  Alexander's 
clergy,  but  in  subordination  to  him.  At  the  same  time,  if 
the  bishop  appointed  by  Alexander  were  to  die,  the  bishop 
set  up  by  Meletius  might  replace  him,  provided  always 
that  he  were  elected  according  to  rule,  and  with  the 
approbation  of  the  Metropolitan  of  Alexandria.  As  to 
Meletius  himself,  having  regard  to  his  special  culpability, 
he  was  only  allowed  to  retain  the  title  of  bishop,  but  was 
absolutely  forbidden  to  exercise  any  pastoral  functions. 

It  was  not  by  the  advice  of  Athanasius  that  the 
Meletians  were  treated  so  mercifully.  He  knew  well  the 
kind  of  people  with  whom  they  were  dealing,  and  foresaw 
that  there  would  be  trouble  on  their  account  in  the  future. 
The  event  justified  his  opinion. 


p.  148]  THE  CREED  OF  NIC.^A  117 

As  to  the  reckoning  of  Easter,  the  Bishop  of  Antioch 
and  his  Eastern  colleagues  consented  to  conform  to  the 
use  of  Alexandria,  and  to  celebrate  Easter  at  the  same 
time  as  the  other  Churches. 

These  decisions  were  communicated  to  all  the  Churches 
interested  in  the  matter,  not  only  by  the  council,  but  also 
by  the  emperor,^  who  had  made  it  his  special  duty  to 
exercise  pressure  upon  the  dissenting  party  in  order  to 
bring  them  back  to  Catholic  unity. 

It  also  appeared  to  be  necessary,  in  view  of  the  divisions 
which  the  affair  of  Arius  had  introduced  amongst  the 
bishops,  to  come  to  some  mutual  agreement  upon  a 
formula  which,  being  admitted  by  everyone,  might  pre- 
vent a  repetition  of  the  theological  movements  of 
which  there  had  been  reason  to  complain.  The  only 
doctrinal  synthesis  which  the  Church  recognized  at  that 
time  was  the  baptismal  creed,  which  had  its  origin  in 
Rome,  but  which  had  been  modified  here  and  there,  in 
various  ways,  since  the  very  early  times  when  it  had 
begun  to  be  current.  Eusebius  of  Caesarea  thought  the 
opportunity  a  good  one  for  avenging  here  the  defeat 
sustained  by  his  Egyptian  friends ;  he  presented  to 
the  council  the  text  of  the  creed  in  use  in  his  own 
Church.  It  was  accepted,  he  says,  in  principle  :  it  con- 
tained nothing  that  could  startle  anyone.  But  since  in 
regard  to  the  special  points  which  had  been  matter  of 
dispute  it  remained  absolutely  indefinite,  it  was  modified 
by  introducing  into  it  certain  additions,  and  suppressing 
certain  useless  words.  It  was  thus-  that  the  celebrated 
Creed  of  Nicaea  was  drawn  up  : — 

*  Letter  of  the  council  to  the  Church  of  Alexandria,  'E-rreiSi]  t^s  toD 
Qfov,  Socrates,  i.  9 ;  Theodoret,  i.  8  ;  Gelasius,  ii.  34.  Letter  of 
Constantine  to  the  Church  of  Alexandria,  Xaipere  dyav-qTol,  Socrates, 
i.  9  ;  Gelasius,  ii.  37.  Letter  of  Constantine  to  the  Easterns,  Uecpav 
Xa/3wc,  Eusebius,  V,  C.  iii.  17-20;  Socrates,  i.  9  ;  Theodoret,  i.  9. 

2  According  to  St  Basil,  Ep.  81  (cf.  244,  9),  the  drawing  up  of  this 
creed  was  entrusted  to  Hermogenes,  who  became  later  Bishop  of 
Caesarea  in  Cappadocia.  He  was  undoubtedly  a  priest  or  deacon  of 
that  Church,  who  had,  like  Athanasius,  accompanied  his  bishop  to  the 
council. 


118    ARIUS  AND  THE  COUNCIL  OF  NICE  A  [cii.  iv. 

"  We  believe  in  one  God,  Father,  Almighty,  author  of 
all  things,  visible  and  invisible ;  and  in  one  Lord,  Jesus 
Christ,  the  Son  of  God,  the  only  begotten  ^  of  the 
Father — i.c.y  of  the  essence  of  the  Father,  God  of  God, 
Light  of  Light,  Very  God  of  Very  God ;  begotten  and 
not  made,  consubstantial  with  the  Father,  by  whom  all  has 
been  made ;  Who  for  us  men,  and  for  our  salvation 
came  down,  was  incarnate,  was  made  Man,  suffered, 
was  raised  to  life  the  third  day,  ascended  into  heaven,  and 
will  come  to  judge  the  living  and  the  dead  ;  and  in  the 
Holy  Ghost. 

"  As  to  those  who  say  :  There  was  a  time  when  He  was 
not ;  Before  He  was  begotten,  He  was  not ;  He  was  made 
of  nothing,  or  of  another  substance  or  essence  - ;  the  Son 
of  God  is  a  created  being,  subject  to  change,  mutable ;  to 
such  persons,  the  Catholic  Church  says  Anathema." 

In  addition  to  this  creed,  the  council  also  drew  up  a 
certain  number  of  ecclesiastical  regulations,  which  it 
formulated  in  twenty  canons. 

The  internal  crises  of  the  preceding  century  had  left 
in  the  East  traces  which  the  council  endeavoured  to  remove. 
The  Novatians  were  to  be  met  with,  more  or  less,  through- 
out Asia  Minor ;  at  Antioch,  and  perhaps  elsewhere, 
Paulianists  were  to  be  found,  followers  of  the  doctrines  of 
Paul  of  Samosata.  With  regard  to  the  Novatians,  the 
council  {c.  8)  showed  itself  very  conciliatory.  It  enjoined 
that  they  should  be  admitted  to  communion,  on  the  simple 
promise  to  accept  Catholic  dogmas  and  to  hold  communion 
with  persons  who  had  been  twice  married  ^  and  apostates 
who  had  repented.  Their  clergy  might  perform  their 
duties  in  places  where  there  were  no  Catholic  clergy,  and 
were  merged  in  the  latter  when  there  were  any.  As  to  the 
Paulianists  (r.  19),  their  baptism  was  declared  invalid;  they 
were  obliged  to  submit  to  rebaptism.  Their  clergy  also,  if 
they  wished  to  continue  their  functions,  which  the  council 
admitted  as  a  possibility,  were  obliged  to  be  reordained. 

^  yevvTjd^vra  /xovoyevi].  ^  €|  eripas  inroaTdaeus  7)  ovalas. 

^  Of  course,  it  is  here  a  question  of  two  marriages  in  succession — 
of  second  marriage,  and  not  of  simultaneous  bigamy. 


p.  151]  DISCIPLINARY  CANONS  119 

The  persecution  of  Licinius  was  still  of  recent  date  ; 
several  canons  {cc.  11-14)  were  devoted  to  legislation  with 
regard  to  cases  of  penance  arising  from  it. 

With  regard  to  clerical  discipline,  the  council  forbade 
the  ordination  of  voluntary  eunuchs  {c.  i),  of  neophytes 
{c.  2),  or  of  penitents  {cc.  9,  10)  ;  it  forbade  priests  and 
bishops  to  transfer  themselves  from  one  Church  to 
another  1  {cc.  15,  16);  it  forbade  the  clergy  in  general  to 
practise  usury  {c.  17),  and  to  keep  under  their  roof  any 
women  who  might  give  cause  for  suspicion  {c.  3),  Bishops, 
in  each  province,  were  to  be  installed  by  all  their 
colleagues  ;  and  if  any  of  these  were  unable  to  be  present, 
their  approval  was  at  least  necessary ;  the  installation  was 
to  be  confirmed  by  the  bishop  of  the  principal  city,  the 
metropolitan  {c.  4).  No  bishop  was  allowed  to  receive,  and 
certainly  not  to  promote,  clerics  who  had  deserted  their 
own  Church  (r.  16),  or  to  reinstate  persons  who  had  been 
excommunicated  by  his  colleagues.  As  there  might  be 
occasion,  with  regard  to  this  point,  to  revise  the  episcopal 
sentences,  the  bishops  of  each  province  were  invited  to 
assemble  twice  a  year  in  council  to  deliver  judgment  in 
cases  of  appeal  {c.  5). 

In  thus  laying  down  its  rules  for  the  provincial 
relations  of  bishops,  the  council  had  no  intention  of 
diminishing  the  dignity  of  positions  consecrated  by  long 
custom,  notably  that  of  the  Bishop  of  Alexandria-  with 
regard  to  the  Churches  of  the  whole  of  Egypt,  of  Libya 
and  the  Pentapolis ;  for  all  these  Churches  the  Bishop 
of  Alexandria   was    the    immediate  superior  of  the  local 

'  This  decision  affected  the  Bishops  of  Nicomedia  and  Antioch, 
transferred,  one  from  Berytus,  the  other  from  Berea  ;  but  the  law  had 
not  a  retrospective  effect. 

"^  Here,  the  council  brings  forward  the  custom  of  Rome  :  eVfiS;;  koI 
rw  iv  rrj  "Pufxri  ^TrtiT/viTrw  tovto  ffvvr)6h  iariv.  Actually,  the  Pope  exercised 
at  that  time  the  authority  of  a  metropolitan  over  the  bishops  of  the 
whole  of  Italy.  In  certain  Latin  versions  of  this  canon  a  closer 
definition  has  been  attempted  by  restricting  the  metropolitical  juris- 
diction of  the  Pope  to  the  stiburbicaria  loca — that  is  to  say,  to  those 
Churches  not  included  in  the  jurisdictions  of  Milan  and  Aquileia, 
established  after  the  Council  of  Nica^a. 


120   ARIUS  AND  THE  COUNCIL  OF  NIC.EA  [ch.  iv. 

bishop :  there  was  no  other  metropolitan  but  himself. 
The  ancient  customs  of  Antioch  and  elsewhere  were  also 
to  be  maintained  ;  the  Bishop  of  JEVia,  also,  was  to  preserve 
his  traditional  prerogatives— without  prejudice,  however,  to 
the  metropolitical  rights  of  Csesarea  (cc.  6,  7). 

Such  is  the  ecclesiastical  legislation  of  Nica^a,^  legislation 
without  synthetic  character,  entirely  determined  by  circum- 
stances, as  was  always  the  case  with  the  legislation  of  the 
councils.  It  represented  certainly  not  the  general  regula- 
tion of  ecclesiastical  relations,  but  simply  the  solution  of  a 
certain  number  of  cases,  to  which  the  attention  of  the 
assembled  members  happened  to  have  been  called.  Up 
to  that  time  the  Church  had  existed  either  upon  un- 
written traditions,  or  upon  collections  of  rules  claiming 
the  authority  of  the  apostles  or  their  disciples,  but  without 
any  title  which  could  be  verified.  The  Councils  of  Elvira 
and  of  Aries  were  never  acknowledged  in  the  East ;  those 
of  Ancyra  and  Neocaesarea  waited  a  long  time  before 
they  were  recognized  in  the  West :  the  canons  of  Nicaea 
were  accepted  everywhere,  from  the  first,  and  were  every- 
where placed  at  the  head  of  the  authentic  records  of 
ecclesiastical  law. 

The  canons  relating  to  discipline  do  not  appear  to 
have  met  with  much  opposition.  It  was  quite  otherwise 
with  the  creed.  The  precision  of  the  negative  formulae 
with  which  it  concluded,  and  such  expressions  as  "  begotten 
of  the  Essence  of  the  Father,  Very  God,  begotten  and  not 
made,  consubstantial  with  the  Father,"  absolutely  excluded 
Arianism  in  doctrine.  The  supporters  of  Arius,  whether 
they  came  from  the  Lucianic  school,  like  Eusebius  of 
Nicomedia,  or  from  among  the  Origenists  who  had  joined 
their  forces,  like  Eusebius  of  Caesarea,  could  not  sign  such 
a  profession  of  faith  without  detracting  from  their 
principles.  They  raised  great  objection,  in  particular,  to 
the  word  consubstantial,  finding  fault  with  it  as  not  taken 

1  For  the  sake  of  completeness,  we  may  mention  further  two  other 
canons,  one  against  the  encroachments  of  deacons  {c.  18),  the  other 
against  the  custom  of  kneeling  at  prayers  on  Sunday  and  during  the 
Paschal  season  {c.  20). 


p.  153]  THE  HOMOOUSIOS  121 

from  Scripture,  and  as  having  been  repudiated  by  the 
Council  of  Antioch,  in  the  time  of  Paul  of  Samosata.  To 
this  the  orthodox  party  replied,  that  several  ancient  and 
weighty  authors,  Theognostus,  Origen,  and  especially  the 
two  Dionysii,  the  one  of  Alexandria  and  the  other  of 
Rome,  had  all  made  use  of  the  word  in  dispute,  which  was 
not,  it  is  true,  scriptural,  but  which  clearly  expressed  what 
it  was  desired  to  teach.  This  last  point  was  open  to 
dispute,  for,  in  itself,  the  word  "  consubstantial "  was  not  so 
very  clear,  and,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  it  has  not  always  been 
taken  in  the  same  sense.^  But,  in  the  creed,  the  truth 
which  it  was  meant  to  express  was  that  the  Son  of  God 
belongs  in  no  wise  to  the  category  of  created  beings,  and 
that,  whatever  may  be  the  mystery  of  His  generation.  His 
Essence  is  truly  divine.  This  is  the  meaning  of  the 
formula,  "  begotten  of  the  Essence  of  the  Father,"  e/c  r^? 
Tov  Jlarpo<i  overlap,  which  has  disappeared  from  the  text 
at  present  in  use,  and  which  forms  really  a  mere  repetition 
in  conjunction  with  the  onioovcnog.  Athanasius,  to  whom 
the  formula  e/c  t>??  tov  Harpo?  ovaim  is  very  familiar,  does 
not  often  use,  for  his  own  part,  the  word  consubsta7itial.  It 
was  certainly  not  he  nor  his  bishop  who  suggested  it  to 
the  council.  It  appears  rather  as  if  the  suggestion  came 
from  the  Roman  legates.  For  in  Rome,  as  a  matter  of 
fact,  the  word  was  in  current  and  official  use ;  sixty  years 
before  the  Council  of  Nicaea,  Dionysius  of  Alexandria  had 
been  reproved  for  his  hesitation  in  employing  it.-  Since 
the  days  of  Zephyrinus  and  Callistus,  the  Roman  Church 
had  always  been  more  concerned  to  maintain  the  doctrine 
of  absolute  Monotheism  and  the  absolute  Divinity  of  Jesus 
Christ  than  to  develop  methods  of  reconciling  these  two 
data.  This  primary  concern  was  shared  by  the  Modalists  ; 
and  those  minds  with  a  tendency  towards  Sabellianism 
among  the  members  of  the  council  were  attached  to  it 
in  advance,  notably  Marcellus,  the  Bishop  of  Ancyra,  of 

*  For  instance,  when  it  is  said  that  Christ,  consubstantial  with 
God  by  His  divine  nature,  is  consubstantial  with  us  by  His  human 
nature, 

^  See  Vol.  I.,  p.  352, 


122    ARIUS  AND  THE  COUNCIL  OF  NIC.EA  [en.  iy. 

whom  we  shall  soon  hear  more.  Such  supporters  of  the 
hojnoousios  were  not  very  likely,  it  must  certainly  be 
admitted,  to  recommend  it  to  the  minds  of  people  who, 
ever  since  the  time  of  Origen,  had  waged  incessant  war 
against  Modalism. 

Indeed,  the  hovwoiisios  only  won  acceptance  with 
considerable  difficulty ;  it  was  imposed  rather  than 
received.  Hosius  patronized  it  with  much  energy ;  and 
so  did  the  Bishops  of  Alexandria  and  Antioch.  The 
emperor  made  no  secret  of  his  agreement  with  it ;  and 
this,  for  many,  was  a  supreme  argument.  Opposition 
grew  weaker  ;  even  that  of  Eusebius  of  Cssarea,  even  that 
of  the  Bishops  of  Nicomedia  and  Nicsea,  as  well  as  of  the 
whole  Lucianic  party.  Everyone  signed,  except  the  two 
Libyans,  Theonas  and  Secundus,  who  refused  to  separate 
themselves  from  their  party.  And,  by  the  action  of  the 
government,  they  were  confined  in  Illyricum,  with  Arius 
and  his  Alexandrian  followers.^ 

How  their  former  protectors  explained  their  complete 
change  of  front,  we  can  form  some  idea  from  reading  the 
pitiful  and  insincere  letter  which  the  Bishop  of  Ca^sarea 
wrote  without  a  moment's  delay  to  his  own  Church. 
Athanasius,  who  was  no  friend  of  his,  and  with  reason, 
took  care  to  transmit  this  document  to  posterity,  by 
annexing  it  to  the  work  which  he  afterwards  published  on 
the  decrees  of  Nica^a.  It  must  have  weighed  heavily  upon 
the  conscience  of  its  author.  However,  he  dared  not  rebel 
openly,  and  waited  for  the  hour  of  retaliation. 

Eusebius  of  Nicomedia  and  Theognis  of  Nicaea  showed 
themselves  less  prudent.  At  the  actual  time  of  the 
council  they  had  had  a  narrow  escape,  for  the  emperor, 
knowing  their  responsibility  in  the  disturbances,  wished  to 
treat  them  like  Arius  and  the  others.  However,  nothing 
more  was  done  than  to  force  them  to  sign.  But  their 
opinions  were  unchanged ;  and  this  was  soon  evident. 
The  decisions  of  the  council  resulted  at  Alexandria  in 
executive  action  which  gave  rise  to  many  protests. 
"  The  Egyptians  alone,"  says  Eusebius,  "  continued,  in  the 
^  Philostorgius,  Supp.  (Migne,  P.  G,  vol.  Ixv.,  p.  623), 


r.  ir.fj]     CONSTANTINE  AND  DISSENTIENTS         123 

midst  of  the  universal  peace,  to  wage  war  upon  each 
other."  ^  Like  the  Donatists,  after  the  Council  of  Aries, 
those  who  were  condemned,  whether  Arian  or  Meletians, 
began  afresh  to  importune  the  emperor.  Constantine 
again  assumed  the  role  of  arbitrator,  summoned  the  party 
leaders  before  him,  and  tried  to  reconcile  them.  Eusebius 
and  Theognis  profited  by  this  opportunity,  welcomed  the 
dissentients,  as  they  had  welcomed  Arius,  and  vigorously 
undertook  their  defence.  This  was  too  much.  The 
emperor  could  not  allow  a  controversy  scarcely  extin- 
guished to  be  fanned  again  into  flame ;  and,  besides,  he 
had  a  grudge  against  Eusebius,  who  was  regarded  as  having 
shown  but  a  short  while  before  too  strong  an  attachment 
to  Licinius.  He  seized  the  two  bishops  and  sent  them 
to  Gaul.  Then  he  wrote  to  their  Churches,  proposing  that 
new  bishops  should  be  chosen  - ;  and  this  was  done.  The 
Bishop  of  Laodicea  in  Syria,  Theodotus,  a  notorious 
Arian,  apparently  held  anti-Nicene  opinions.  The 
emperor  wrote  also  to  him  to  explain  from  the  example 
of  Eusebius  and  Theognis  what  would  be  the  consequences 
of  his  attitude. 

The  emperor  had  fully  made  up  his  mind  to  admit 
no  compromise  in  regard  to  the  council.  It  was  his  very 
own  council :  he  had  been  present  at  it ;  he  had  even  in 
some  measure  directed  it ;  he  held  resolutely  to  its 
decisions. 

It  seemed  then  that  everything  was  finished,  and  as  if 
there  still  remained  only  a  small  group  of  opponents, 
upon  whom  the  imperial  police  had  their  eye  and  their 
hand.     But   it  was    not  so  in  reality ;   the    real   struggle 

'  Eusebius  mentions  this  affair,  V.  C.  iii.  23  ;  the  general  terms  of 
which  he  makes  use  hardly  allow  us  to  discover  whether  it  was  a 
question  of  Arians  or  Meletians,  or  of  both  parties  together.  The  same 
indefiniteness  is  displayed  in  the  letter  of  Constantine  mentioned 
below.  There  has  been  much  exaggeration,  in  our  own  times,  in 
assuming  from  this  incident  a  second  session  of  the  Council  of  Nica^a. 
Eusebius  in  no  way  speaks  of  a  new  convocation  of  the  whole 
episcopate,  but  merely  of  an  invitation  addressed  to  the  "Egyptians." 

-  The  letter  to  the  Church  of  Nicomedia  is  preserved  in 
Theodoret,  i.  20,  and  in  Gelasius  of  Cyzicus,  i.  10. 


124   ARIUS  AND  THE  COUNCIL  OF  NIC.EA  [cii.  iv. 

was  only  beginning.  In  the  2nd  century,  after  various 
alarms,  the  Gnostic  crisis  had  ended  by  subsiding  of  itself. 
Christianity  had  eliminated  the  morbid  germs  by  the 
mere  reaction  of  a  vigorous  organism.  Later  on,  the 
Modalist  movement,  after  having  agitated  the  Churches 
everywhere  to  a  certain  extent,  in  Asia,  at  Rome,  in 
Africa,  Cyrenaica,  and  Arabia,  had  gradually  been  extin- 
guished or  confined  to  a  few  adherents.  There  had  been 
no  necessity  for  council,  or  emperor,  or  creeds,  or 
signatures.  The  dispute  between  Origen  and  his  bishop, 
vigorous  enough  at  the  outset,  had  ended  by  settling 
itself  without  external  interference.  But  in  this  affair  with 
Arius  the  strongest  measures  were  called  into  requisition  ; 
and  the  only  result  was  a  truce  of  very  short  duration, 
followed  by  an  abominable  and  fratricidal  war,  which 
divided  the  whole  of  Christendom,  from  Arabia  to  Spain, 
and  only  ceased  at  last,  after  sixty  years  of  scandal,  by 
bequeathing  as  a  legacy  for  generations  to  come  the  germs 
of  schisms,  the  effects  of  which  the  Church  still  feels. 


CHAPTER  V 

EUSEBIUS   AND   ATHANASIUS 

Eusebius  of  Caesarea :  his  learning,  his  relations  with  Constantine, 
The  homoousios  after  the  Council  of  Nicasa.  Deposition  of 
Eustathius  of  Antioch.  Reaction  against  the  Creed  of  Niceea. 
Athanasius,  Bishop  of  Alexandria.  First  conflicts  with  the 
supporters  of  Meletius  and  of  Arius.  Submission  of  Arius  : 
his  recall  from  exile.  New  intrigues  against  Athanasius. 
Council  of  Tyre.  Deposition  of  Athanasius.  His  first  exile. 
Death  of  Arius.  Marcellus  of  Ancyra  :  his  doctrine,  his  deposi- 
tion.    Writings  of  Eusebius  of  Caesarea  against  Marcellus. 

Constantine,  in  coming  into  contact  with  the  episcopate 
of  the  East,  had  been  able  to  form  a  judgment  of  their 
divisions,  of  the  bitterness  with  which  their  disputes  were 
maintained,  and  yet  at  the  same  time  of  the  great  respect 
which  was  felt  among  them  for  his  own  person  and 
authority.  Of  this  feeling  of  respect  he  did  not  fail  to 
take  advantage  to  calm  troubled  spirits,  to  waive  aside 
inopportune  complaints,  and  in  everything  to  show  himself 
favourable  to  peace  and  unity.  The  bishops  at  Nica:;a 
were  not  dismissed  without  many  exhortations,  for 
Constantine  was  the  greatest  preacher  of  sermons  in  his 
empire.  He  strongly  recommended  them  not  to  tear  each 
other  to  pieces,  and  especially  to  support  those  of  their 
colleagues  who  were  distinguished  by  their  learning  and 
wisdom,  and  to  consider  this  great  gift  of  some  of  their 
number  as  an  advantage  to  them  all. 

It  is  not  without  cause  that  Eusebius  ^  has  selected  for 

'  Eusebius,  V.  C.  iii.  21. 

125 


126  EUSEBIUS  AND  ATHANASIUS  [gh.  v. 

notice  this  detail,  which  concerned  himself  so  nearly.  The 
emperor  had  immediately  singled  out  this  great  scholar, 
regarding  him  with  justice  as  an  ornament  to  Christianity 
and  to  the  episcopate.  He  could  not  disguise  from 
himself  that  the  Bishop  of  Csesarea's  reputation  had 
suffered  from  his  defeat  at  the  council,  and,  no  doubt,  the 
easy  witticisms  which  were  current  with  regard  to  him, 
in  consequence,  had  come  to  the  emperor's  ears. 
Constantine  covered  him  with  unchanging  marks  of 
favour. 

Eusebius  was  a  man  of  elaborate  learning.  He  knew 
everything  :  history,  biblical  and  profane,  ancient  literature, 
philosophy,  geography,  mathematical  computation,  and 
exegesis.  In  his  great  works,  the  Praeparatio  Evangelica 
and  the  Denwnstratio  Evangelica,  he  had  explained 
Christianity  to  the  educated  public  ;  by  his  Chronicle  and 
his  Ecclesiastical  History,  he  had  drawn  up  its  Annals  ;  he 
had  defended  Christianity  against  Porphyry  and  Hierocles. 
And,  although  already  advanced  in  years,  he  continued 
to  write.  He  commented  upon  Isaiah,  the  Psalter,  and 
other  books  also.  Was  anyone  in  need  of  explanations 
upon  the  difficult  question  of  Easter,  in  which  exegesis, 
ritual,  and  astronomy  were  inextricably  involved  ?  He  was 
there  to  give  them.  Public  attention  was  then  beginning 
to  be  attracted  towards  the  Holy  Places.  Eusebius,  who 
knew  Palestine  and  the  Bible  thoroughly,  explained  the 
names  of  the  places  and  of  the  peoples  who  figure  in  Holy 
Scripture,  described  Judaea,  and  reconstructed  the  ancient 
topography  of  the  Holy  City.  He  excelled  in  formal 
discourses.  He  was  the  orator  marked  out  for  great 
ceremonial  occasions,  for  solemn  dedications,  or  imperial 
panegyrics.  It  was  to  him  that  the  emperor  had  recourse, 
whenever  he  needed  copies  of  the  Bible  well  copied  and 
perfectly  correct.  Once  he  asked  him  for  fifty  of  these  at 
one  time,  for  the  churches  of  Constantinople.^ 

Thus  highly  esteemed  by  his  sovereign,  Eusebius  was 
in  no  way  behindhand  on  his  side,  and  took  little  pains 
to  conceal  his  enthusiastic  admiration  for  Constantine. 
1   V.  C.  iv.  36. 


i>.  160]  CONSTANTINE  AND  EUSEBIU8  127 

He  has  been  reproached  severely  for  this,  but  most 
unjustly,  for  it  was  a  sincere  and  disinterested  enthusiasm. 
His  position  had  been  an  assured  one  before  he  came  in 
contact  with  Constantine,  and  the  emperor  could  only  add 
his  personal  favour.  Constantine  never  set  foot  in 
Palestine.  We  have  no  knowledge  of  Eusebius  having 
been  near  him  on  any  other  occasions  but  those  of  the 
Council  of  Nicaea  (325),  and  the  Tricennalia  (335). 
Caesarea  was  a  long  way  from  Nicomedia,  and  the  bishop 
was  no  longer  of  an  age  to  take  long  journeys  without  a 
special  reason. 

The  years  following  the  Council  of  Nicaea  were  sad 
enough  for  him.  He  could  ill  stomach  his  discomfiture, 
and,  to  speak  candidly,  he  was  not  the  only  person  who 
looked  with  a  very  moderate  approval  upon  the  new 
creed.  The  homooiisios  insisted  upon  by  the  Romans 
had  but  few  adherents  in  the  East,  unless  it  were  in  the 
ranks  of  theSabellians,  or  those  suspected  of  an  inclination 
towards  their  doctrines.  In  Egypt,  the  term  had  a  very 
clear  meaning  :  it  signified  that  the  Arians  were  heretics  ; 
but,  beyond  that,  the  explanations  of  it  which  were  given 
did  not  shine  by  their  lucidity.  In  the  East,  properly 
so-called,  it  had  also  an  independent  signification,  w'o-., 
that  the  seventy  or  eighty  bishops  who,  in  268,  had 
condemned  Paul  of  Samosata,  had  made  a  mistake  on 
an  important  point.  The  result  was  that,  notwithstand- 
ing the  promises  of  mutual  agreement  and  discretion 
made  to  the  emperor  from  various  quarters,  the  quarrels 
soon  recommenced.  Eusebius  of  Caesarea  and  his 
colleague,  Eustathius  of  Antioch,  exchanged  bitter 
letters,^  which  threw  little  light  upon  the  debate,  and 
soon  made  it  still  more  venomous,  Eustathius  was  a 
great  enemy  of  Origen,  and  an  enemy  of  a  very  mili- 
tant   kind.      This   was    no    recommendation    to    him    at 

^  Socrates,  i.  23,  says  that  he  had  seen  episcopal  letters  on  this 

subject  :  'fis  5^  r^/xfij  iK  Sia(p6puv  iiriaroKQi'  evprjKafxev,  as  /xero.  ttju  avvoSov 
oi  eniffKOTTOL  Trpbs  aXKrjXovs  eypacpov,  rj  rov  6/j.oovaiov  Xe'^tj  rivas  dierdpaTre  k.  t.  e, 

St  Jerome,  De  vtn's,  85,  was  also  acquainted  with  letters  of  Eustathius 
in  great  numbers,  itifinitae  epistolae. 


128  EUSEBIUS  AND  ATHANASIUS  [ch.  v. 

Caesarea.^  At  Antioch  the  clergy  were  greatly  divided. 
Down  to  that  time,  the  episcopal  throne  had  been  occupied 
by  prelates  unfavourable  to  the  Arians ;  but  Antioch  was 
the  real  home  of  Arianism  :  it  was  there  that  Lucian  had 
held  his  school.  His  spiritual  posterity  was  not  entirely 
dispersed  in  other  dioceses ;  some  had  remained  on  the 
spot.  This  was  clearly  to  be  seen  when  Bishop  Eustathius, 
quick  enough  himself  in  retort,"-  began  to  be  a  subject 
for  discussion.  The  quarrel  grew  fiercer,  and  ended  by 
producing  between  Eustathians  and  anti-Eustathians  a 
conflict  of  the  most  savage  kind.  Accusations  of  Sabellian- 
ism  and  of  Polytheism  were  freely  flung  at  each  other's 
heads.  Eustathius  reproached  the  Bishop  of  Caesarea 
with  betraying  the  faith  of  Nicaea ;  Eusebius  protested 
that  it  was  not  so  at  all,  and  that  if  Eustathius  asserted 
it,  it  was  because  he  was  himself  a  Sabellian. 

Things  came  to  such  a  point  that  a  synod  appeared 
necessary.  We  do  not  know  by  whom  it  was  convoked. 
It  was  held  at  Antioch,  and,  as  in  the  time  of  Paul  of 
Samosata,  the  decision  was  given  against  the  bishop  of 
that  great  city.  We  do  not  possess  its  Acts;  the 
authorities  give  different  accounts  of  it.^  According  to 
the  opponents  whom  Eustathius  had  upon  the  spot,  it 
was  for  his  teaching  that  he  was  condemned,  Cyrus, 
his  successor  in  the  see  of  Berea,  having  laid  against 
him  an  accusation  of  Sabellianism.^  Theodoret,  who 
wrote  a  century  after  the  event,  speaks  of  a  woman 
who    is   represented   as    falsely   accusing   the    bishop    of 

^  See  the  treatise  of  Eustathius  upon  the  Pythian  priestess  and 
Origen's  explanations  with  regard  to  that  story.  Cf.  Bulletin  critique, 
vol.  viii.,  p.  5. 

2  Besides  the  treatise  on  the  Pythian  priestess,  a  fragment  relating 
to  the  Council  of  Nicsea,  preserved  by  Theodoret,  i.  7,  enables  us  to 
form  an  idea  of  his  style. 

2  Socrates  here  complains  of  the  bishops,  who,  he  says,  deposed 
people  as  impious,  without  stating  in  what  their  impiety  consisted. 

*  Socrates,  i.  24,  gets  this  from  George  of  Laodicea,  a  notorious 
Arianizer  who  seems  to  reproduce  a  remark  of  Eusebius  of  Emesa. 
Cyrus  himself  might  have  been  deposed  upon  the  same  doctrinal 
pretext. 


p.  162]  EUSTATHIUS  OF  ANTIOCH  129 

having  seduced  her.^  Athanasius  gives  another  reason  : 
Eustathius,  it  is  alleged,  was  accused  to  the  emperor 
of  having  insulted  his  mother.  In  this  there  may  well 
have  been  a  foundation  of  truth.  Helena  visited  the 
East  in  the  time  of  Eustathius.  We  know  that  she  had 
a  great  devotion  to  St  Lucian,  the  celebrated  priest  of 
Antioch,  whose  body,  being  thrown  into  the  sea  off 
Nicomedia,  had  been  carried  by  the  currents — according 
to  the  legend,  by  a  dolphin — to  the  exact  spot  on  the 
shore  at  Drepanum,  where  the  empress  was  born,  and 
where,  no  doubt,  she  had  a  residence.  Lucian  was  her 
own  special  martyr ;  she  built  a  magnificent  basilica  in 
his  honour.  He  had  left  a  memory  in  Antioch  which 
was  the  subject  of  controversy :  the  Arians  held  him 
in  great  veneration  ;  their  adversaries  were  less  enthusi- 
astic. It  is  quite  possible  that  on  this  subject  Eustathius 
may  have  let  fall  some  indiscreet  words.  Later  on,  as 
we  shall  see,  St  Ambrose  does  not  hesitate  to  say  that 
Helena  had  been  a  servant  girl  at  an  inn,  stabularia, 
which,  considering  the  customs  of  that  age  in  matters 
of  hospitality,  implied  a  great  many  things.  In  the  days 
of  Constantine  it  was  not  wise  to  push  one's  enquiries 
into  early  history  of  this  kind. 

I  should  not  like  to  affirm  that  the  council  considered 
this  a  reason  for  deposition,  and  I  would  rather  accept, 
as  the  ground  for  the  ecclesiastical  condemnation,  the 
motive  suggested  by  George  of  Laodicea,  viz.,  Sabellianism. 
But  the  measures  taken  by  Constantine  lead  us  to  believe 
that  he  saw  in  this  affair  something  other  than  a  theo- 
logical question,  and  that  he  took  note  of  the  remarks 
made  about  his  mother.  Helena  was  empress  (^Augusta) ; 
it  was  a  case  of  lese-tnajeste.  Eustathius  was  arrested 
and  brought  before  the  emperor,  who,  after  having 
listened  to   his  defence,-   exiled  him  to    Trajanopolis,  in 

^  Theodoret,  i.  20,  21.  The  council  seems  to  have  admitted  this 
assertion  without  any  other  guarantee  but  the  woman's  oath  ;  and 
she  confessed  later  that  her  child  was  indeed  the  son  of  a  Eustathius, 
but  a  blacksmith  and  not  the  bishop.  All  this  is  very  doubtful, 
and  reads  like  legend.  2   y^  q  jji   ^9. 

II  I 


130  EUSEBIUS  AND  ATHANASIUS  [ch.  v 

Thrace,  and  then   to  PhiHppi,  with  a  certain  number  of 
priests  and  deacons.     He  died  shortly  afterwards.^ 

It  was  not  easy  to  find  his  successor.'^  Eustathius  had 
many  supporters ;  he  had  also  bitter  enemies,  for  he  had 
been  very  severe  to  the  opponents,  more  or  less  avowed, 
of  the  condemnation  of  Arius.  Antioch  was  in  a  state  of 
effervescence  ;  the  curia  and  the  magistrates  were  divided  in 
their  opinions.  A  little  more,  and  they  would  have  come  to 
blows  in  the  matter.  Paulinus,  the  unattached  Bishop  of 
Tyre,^  who  was  a  native  of  Antioch,  was  for  some  time 
at  the  head  of  the  Church  there,  perhaps  as  provisional 
administrator.  He  died  at  the  end  of  six  months  ;  then 
a  certain  Eulalius  was  elected  bishop ;  but  his  tenure  of 
the  see  was  also  short,  and  the  agitation  began  again. 
Constantine  sent  a  cojues  of  his  personal  suite  to  Antioch, 
and  a  comparative  calm  succeeded  ;  a  great  many  votes 
were  collected  in  favour  of  Eusebius  of  Caesarea. 

Eusebius    was   not    at   all    anxious   to   leave   for   the 

^  St  Jerome,  in  his  De  viris,  says  that  Eustathius  was  exiled  to 
Trajanopolis,  and  that  his  tomb  was  still  to  be  seen  there.  It  was, 
however,  from  Philippi  (see  the  chronicles  of  Victor  and  Theophanes) 
that  the  remains  of  Eustathius  were  brought  back  to  Antioch  about 
the  year  482.  Socrates  (i v.  14),  followed  by  Sozomen  (vi.  13),  represents 
him  as  living  till  the  time  of  Valens  ;  but  there  must  be  a  confusion 
in  this.  Eustathius  is  never  mentioned  again  in  the  documents 
of  the  time  of  Constantine  and  Constantius,  in  which  appear  the 
names  of  so  many  bishops  in  a  similar  situation  ;  besides,  we  know, 
from  Theodoret  (iii.  2),  that  Eustathius  was  dead  when  Meletius 
was  elected  Bishop  of  Antioch  in  360. 

-  For  this,  see  especially  Eusebius,  V.  C.  iii.  59-62. 

^  Paulinus  had  been,  we  know  not  why,  replaced  by  another  as 
Bishop  of  Tyre  ;  it  was  Zeno  who  signed  in  that  capacity  at  the 
Council  of  Nicaea.  Eusebius  dedicated  to  him  (shortly  afterwards, 
it  would  seem)  his  Onomasticon.  In  his  work  against  Marcellus 
(i.  4),  Eusebius  says  that  the  Church  of  Antioch  had  claimed  him 
as  a  possession  of  its  own  ;  the  lists  of  bishops  of  Antioch  agree  in 
placing,  either  before  or  after  Eustathius,  a  certain  Paul  or  Paulinus 
to  whom  they  assign  an  episcopate  of  five  years  ;  St  Jerome,  in  his 
Chronicle,  also  mentions  a  Paulinus,  and  places  him  before  Eustathius. 
Theodoret  (i.  24)  does  not  speak  of  him.  Philostorgius  (iii.  15)  is 
very  precise  :  he  places  Paulinus  immediately  before  Eulalius,  and 
says  that  he  died  after  six  months  of  authority. 


I'.  K'.o]  THE  CHURCH  OF  ANTIOCH  131 

inferno  of  Antioch  his  peaceful  bishopric  and  his  comfort- 
able library.  He  protested  that  the  canons  of  Nica^a,  in 
conformity  with  sound  ecclesiastical  usage,  forbade  the 
translation  of  bishops.  The  emperor  commended  him 
much  for  his  modesty  and  his  respect  for  rules ;  he 
signified  to  the  Syrian  bishops  that  they  must  choose 
another  candidate.^  He  himself  indicated  to  them  two 
such  candidates  —  Euphronius,  a  priest  of  Caesarea  in 
Cappadocia,  and  George,  who  was  at  that  time  a  priest  of 
Arethusa,  but  who  had  formerly  been  ordained,  and  then 
deposed,  by  Alexander  of  Alexandria.'-  They  decided 
upon  Euphronius.  He  was  a  man  of  the  same  opinions 
as  Eulalius  and  Eusebius.  The  see  of  Antioch  was, 
therefore,  secured  for  a  long  time  to  the  adversaries  of 
Council  of  Nicita — secret  adversaries,  of  course,  for  Con- 
stantine  would  never  allow  it  to  be  attacked  openly. 

The  organizer  of  this  concealed  reaction  was  Eusebius 
of  Nicomedia.  His  exile  had  only  lasted  three  years,^  and 
there  is  no  doubt  that  he  and  his  friend  Theognis  had 
already  returned  at  the  time  when  Eustathius  was  deposed 
{c.  330).  The  causes  of  this  return,  so  big  with  conse- 
quences, are  not  easily  discernible.^  A  complete  change 
was  really  brought  about  in  the  inclinations  of  Constantine, 
with  whom,  henceforth,  Eusebius  of  Nicomedia  appears 
to  have  possessed  considerable  influence.^     Not  only  were 

'  Letters  to  the  people  of  Antioch,  to  Eusebius,  to  the  bishops 
(Theodotus,  Theodore,  Narcissus,  Aetius,  Alphius,  and  others),  ibid. 

-  It  was  he  who  afterwards  became  Bishop  of  Laodicea. 

'  This  is  the  number  given  by  Philostorgius. 

^  I  should  be  inclined  to  suspect  that  the  account  of  Rufinus 
(i.  II,  vide  infra),  as  to  the  recall  of  Arius,  really  refers  to  that  of 
Eusebius.  Constantia  had  no  special  reason  for  being  interested 
in  Arius.  On  the  contrary,  Eusebius,  as  bishop  of  the  city  in  which 
the  emperor  lived,  must  have  been  known  to  her  for  a  long  time  ;  he 
was  also  distantly  connected  with  the  imperial  family.  We  can  easily 
understand  that  the  widow  of  Licinius  was  distressed  at  the  exile  of 
Eusebius,  her  spiritual  father  and  her  friend. 

"  Following  Tillemont  and  many  others,  I  feel  myself  obliged  to 
reject  the  letter,  which  Socrates  (i.  14)  gives  us  as  having  been 
written  by  Eusebius  and  Theognis  to  the  most  important  bishops 
(joh  Kopixpalois  T^v  iwiaKuwwf')  to  Stir  them  up  to  demand  their   recall 


132  EUSEBIUS  AND  ATHANASIUS  [ch.  v. 

the  two  prelates  recalled  from  exile,  but  they  were  also 
reinstated  in  their  bishoprics,  and  their  temporary  suc- 
cessors were  ousted. 

In  Egypt,  the  aged  Bishop  Alexander  died  on  April  i8, 
328.^  His  deacon,  Athanasius,-  already  a  very  prominent 
person,  both  on  account  of  the  confidence  placed  in  him 
by  Alexander  and  the  part  he  had  played  at  Nicasa,  was 
immediately   acclaimed    as    bishop,   and    consecrated    on 

from  exile.  See  the  discussion  in  Tillemont,  vol.  vi.,  p.  810.  On  the 
other  hand,  it  is  not  easy  to  explain  the  origin  of  this  document. 
Perhaps  Socrates  may  have  been  deceived  with  regard  to  its  authors, 
It  would  suit  well  enough  Bishops  Secundus  and  Theonas ;  in  any 
case,  it  assumes  Arius  as  rehabilitated  by  the  bishops,  an  event 
which  only  took  place  in  335. 

1  A  passage  of  St  Athanasius  {Apol.  coritra.  Ar.  59),  in  which  it 
is  said  that  Alexander  died  scarcely  five  months  after  the  Nicene 
Council,  seems  to  contradict  this  date,  which  is  furnished  by  the 
Paschal  Letters  and  their  Chronicle.  On  close  examination,  it  seems 
to  me  that  this  interval  is  indicated  as  starting,  not  from  the  Council 
of  NiciEa,  but  from  the  reception  of  the  Meletians.  Between  the 
decision  of  Nicsea  and  the  end  of  the  schism  in  Egypt  a  certain  time 
may  have  elapsed,  and  there  is  every  appearance  {vide  supra^  p.  123), 
that  after  the  council  there  were  renewed  discussions  upon  this  subject. 
Matters  of  this  kind  are  always  very  delicate  to  arrange.  I  should 
allow,  then,  that  the  schism  may  have  dragged  on  until  towards  the 
end  of  327.  Cf.  Eusebius,  V.  C.  iii.  23.  On  the  objections  made  to 
this   date,  see   Gerhard  LcEschcke,  Rheinischcs  Museum^    1906,    pp. 

45-49. 

'^  Upon  the  history  of  St  Athanasius,  apart  from  his  Apologies  and 
his  History  to  the  Monks,  we  possess  two  chronological  documents  of 
great  importance  :  the  Chronicle  of  the  Festal  {Paschal)  Letters,  and 
what  has  been  called  the  Historia  acephala.  The  collection  of  the 
Paschal  letters  of  Athanasius  has  come  down  to  us,  in  an  incomplete 
form,  in  a  Syriac  manuscript.  On  this  text  two  versions  have  been 
made  :  one  in  Latin  (Mai.  Nova  Patrum  Bibliotheca,  vol.  vi.,  p.  i  ; 
Migne,  P.  G.  vol.  xxvi.,  p.  1351))  the  other  in  German  (Larsow, 
Die  Festbriefe  des  Jieil.  Athanasius,  1852) ;  they  leave  much  to  be 
desired.  At  the  head  of  each  letter,  various  chronological  indications 
are  given,  as  well  as  the  Paschal  date  ;  then,  all  these  chronological 
prefaces  are  repeated  in  another  recension,  and  united  at  the  head  of 
the  collection  of  letters.  In  this  other  recension,  which  has  come 
down  to  us  entire,  appear,  here  and  there,  historical  notes.  The 
Historia  acephala  was  first  published  by  Maffei,  from  a  Latin  collec- 
tion   of  canons  preserved  at  \ erona.  {Veronensis  60),  the  collection 


p.  107-8]     THE  CHURCH  OF  ALEXANDRIA  133 

June  j}  "  He  is  an  upright  man  and  a  virtuous,  a  good 
Christian,  an  ascetic,  a  real  bishop  !  "  Such  were  the  cries 
of  the  multitude.  We  must  notice  his  description  as  ascetic. 
It  secured  for  Athanasius,  destined  as  he  was  for  so 
much  strife,  the  support  of  the  Egyptian  solitaries,  who 
now  began  to  be  a  religious  power  in  that  country.  But 
his  greatest  source  of  strength  lay  in  his  own  character. 
In  addition  to  his  gifts  as  an  experienced  pastor,  God  had 
endowed  him  with  a  clear  intellect,  and  a  wide  vision  of 
Christian  tradition,  of  current  events,  and  of  men ;  and 
with  all  this,  he  possessed  a  character  of  absolutel}- 
undaunted  courage,  tempered  by  perfect  sweetness  of 
manner,  but  incapable  of  weakening  before  anything  or 
anybody.  The  orthodoxy  of  Nicaea  had  found  its  repre- 
sentative. Already  threatened  at  this  time,  it  was  soon  to 
pass  through  many  terrible  crises.  At  certain  times,  it 
seemed  to  have  no  other  support  but  Athanasius.  But 
that  was  enough.  Athanasius  had  against  him  the  empire, 
its  police,  the  councils,  and  the  episcopate  :  the  parties  were 
still  equally  balanced,  while  such  a  man  stood  firm. 

He  was  neither  an  unlettered  man,  nor  a  professional 
scholar.     At  the  time  when  he  was  elected  bishop,  he  had 

known  as  that  of  the  deacon  Theodosius  (Migne,  P.  G.  vol.  xxvi., 
p.  1443  ;  there  is  a  much  better  edition  by  Batiffol,  in  the  M/langes 
Cabricres,  vol.  i.,  "1899,  p.  100).  It  is  clear,  and  Mgr.  Batiffol  has 
established  the  fact  {Byzantinischc  Zcitschnft,  vol.  x,,  190 1,  p.  130 
et  seq.\  that  other  parts  of  the  Theodosian  collection  join  on  to  the 
fragment  of  Maffei,  and,  like  that,  are  derived  from  a  sort  of 
apologetic  dossier,  drawn  up  at  the  instigation  of  Athanasius,  in  367, 
and  then  continued  until  his  death.  Mgr.  Batiffol  has  proposed  {Bys. 
Zeitsc/tr.,  I.  c.)  to  identify  this  dossier  wxih  the  Synodicon  of  Athanasius, 
mentioned  by  Socrates  (i.  13);  this  is  very  disputable.  Upon  these 
two  documents,  see  E,  Schwartz,  Ziir  Geschichte  des  Athanasius,  in 
the  Gottingen  Nachrichten,  1904,  p.  333  et  seq. 

'  His  enemies  dared,  later  on,  to  raise  difficulties  with  regard  to 
his  election.  They  are  refuted  by  the  Egyptian  Council  of  340 
(Athan.  Apol.  contra.  Ar.  6),  which  quoted  a  letter  addressed  to  the 
emperors  by  the  opposition  party  ;  doubtless  the  same  letter  which 
Sozomen  saw  (ii.  17).  It  was  a  matter  of  course  that  Athanasius  did 
not  have  the  votes  of  the  supporters  of  Arius,  of  Meletius,  and  other 
schismatics. 


134  EUSEBIUS  AND  ATHANASIUS  [cii.  v. 

already  published  two  books  of  apologetics/  remarkably 
well  put  together  and  admirably  clear.  But  he  willingly 
left  to  others  the  task  of  unravelling  philosophical  enigmas, 
or  exploring  the  secrets  of  learning.  It  was  enough  for 
him  to  know  how  to  write,  and  not  to  lose  the  documents 
which  interested  him.  From  this  talent  and  this  care  his 
enemies  fared  ill. 

The  struggle  soon  commenced.  By  the  beginning  of 
the  year  330,  Athanasius  found  himself  already  at  variance 
with  his  flock,  an  estrangement  due  to  the  ill-will  of  the 
"  heretics."  He  complains  of  this  in  his  Paschal  charge, 
but  without  specifying  the  particular  intrigues  which  were 
troubling  him.  The  little  Meletian  Church  had  joined 
forces  with  Bishop  Alexander,  on  the  conditions  laid 
down  by  the  Nicene  Council.  But  on  Alexander's  death  ^ 
it  did  not  come  to  terms  with  Athanasius,  and  disagree- 
ments made  themselves  felt.  The  head  of  the  party,  after 
the  death  of  Meletius,  was  a  certain  John  Arkaph,  Bishop 
of  Memphis.  The  supporters  whom  Arius  had  left  in 
Alexandria  also  began  to  agitate.  At  the  beginning  of 
331,  when  Athanasius  had  to  write  the  pastoral  letter,^  by 
which  the  Bishops  of  Alexandria  were  accustomed  to 
announce  the  Feast  of  Easter,  he  again  found  himself 
estranged  from  his  flock  and  once  more  on  account  of  the 
"  heretics."  "*  Athanasius  imposed  conditions  for  their  return 
to  the  Church  which  seemed  to  them  extreme.     Eusebius 

'  The  two  treatises,  Ka^'  'EW^i'w;'  and  Tlepl  ivavdpuTrrjcreus.  In  the 
first,  he  shows  the  emptiness  of  paganism  ;  in  the  other,  he  presents 
the  justification  of  Christianity  ;  the  authenticity  of  these  books  has 
only  been  disputed  on  worthless  grounds. 

'  Five  months  after  the  reconcihation,  according  to  Athanasius 
{Apol.  contra  Ar.  59),  which  must,  therefore,  have  taken  place  towards 
the  end  of  the  year  327.  Between  the  close  of  the  Nicene  Council 
and  the  reunion  of  the  Meletians  there  was  an  interval  of  about  two 
years. 

^  Letter  No.  3.  The  chronicle  at  the  head  of  these  letters 
says  that  Athanasius  sent  this  letter  during  his  journey  from  the 
court  {comitaius)  to  Alexandria  ;  but  there  must  be  some  confusion, 
on  this  subject,  between  the  letter  of  331  and  that  of  332. 

*  Toi's  wepi  " kpnov,  says  St  Athanasius  {Joe.  cit.)  ;  the  reference 
here  cannot  be  to  Arius  himself  and  his  companions  in  exile. 


p.  169-170]   ATHANASIUS  AND  THE  MET.ETIANS    135 

of  Nicomedia  encouraged  them  from  his  distant  diocese, 
and  sent  to  the  young  bishop  written  remonstrances  and 
verbal  threats.  He  contrived  to  induce  Constantine  to 
order  Athanasius  to  readmit  to  communion  all  those  who 
desired  it,  under  penalty  of  being  himself  banished  from 
Alexandria.^  Whether  these  threats  were  beginning  to 
be  executed,  or  some  outbreak  warned  him  to  withdraw 
himself  for  a  short  time,  it  is  certain  that  he  was  obliged 
to  leave  his  episcopal  city.  He  wrote  to  the  emperor  in 
justification  of  his  attitude ;  but  the  Meletians  at  once 
entered  the  lists.  Three  of  their  bishops,  Ision,  Eudaemon, 
and  Callinicus,'-  set  out  for  the  court  to  complain  of 
Athanasius.  He  had,  they  said,  imposed  upon  the 
Egyptians,  a  tribute  of  linen  shirts.  Two  of  his  own 
priests.  Apis  and  Macarius,  who  happened  to  be  at  court, 
refuted  this  accusation  ;  but  the  emperor  commanded  the 
bishop  to  appear  before  him.  Two  other  accusations  were 
then  brought  forward.  The  priest  Macarius,  acting  upon 
the  responsibility  of  his  bishop,  had  broken  a  chalice  during 
a  pastoral  visitation  in  Mareotis.  And  Athanasius  himself 
had  sent  a  large  sum  of  money  to  a  certain  Philomenus,  a 
person  suspected  of  evil  intentions  towards  the  emperor's 
person.     This  last  accusation  was  specially  grave. 

Athanasius  had  in  Nicomedia  one  powerful  and  faithful 
friend,  the  praetorian  prefect,  Ablavius.  He  was  able  to 
justify  himself:  his  accusers  were  driven  from  court,  and 
he  himself,  after  suffering  from  the  inclement  winter,  was 
able  to  return  to  Alexandria  before  the  Easter  of  332.2 

1  Athanasius  {Apol.  contra  Ar.  59)  has  preserved  for  us  a 
fragment  of  this  imperial  letter  ;  he  says  that  it  was  brought  to  him 
by  the  "  palatines,"  Syncletius  and  Gaudentius.  If  this  is  not  a  lapsus 
memoriae^  we  must  allow  that  these  officers  took  the  same  journey  twice, 
for  later  on  we  shall  find  them  the  bearers  of  other  imperial  letters. 

-  Apol.  contra  Ar.  60.  Cf.  Festal  Letter  No.  4  ;  in  this  document, 
he  adds  to  the  three  other  accusers  "the  ridiculous  Hieracammon, 
who,  ashamed  of  his  name,  calls  himself  Eulogius." 

^  The  Chronicle  of  the  Festal  Letters,  which  advances  this  journey 
by  a  year,  mentions  a  very  singular  cause  for  it ;  the  enemies  of 
Athanasius  had  accused  him  of  having  been  made  a  bishop  when  too 
young.  That  is  all  that  it  knows  of  in  the  way  of  accusations.  Our 
best  plan  is  to  trust  to  the  Apology  against  the  Arians. 


136  EUSEBIUS  AND  ATHANASIUS  [ch.  v. 

He  brought  with  him  a  letter  from  the  emperor,  in  which, 
after  a  long  homily  on  concord,  were  to  be  found  a  few 
words  of  commendation  in  reference  to  the  bishop, 
while  no  definite  censure  was  inflicted  on  his  accusers.^ 
Athanasius  reassumed  the  government  of  his  Church  and 
the  usual  course  of  his  visitations  as  metropolitan.- 

During  all  this  time,  Constantine  still  maintained,  not 
only  his  fidelity  to  the  Nicene  Council,  but  also  his 
absolute  repudiation  of  Arius,  his  adherents,  and  his 
sympathizers.  What  he  wanted  in  the  East  was  a 
Christianity  at  once  peaceful  and  uniform.  Shortly  after 
the  deposition  of  Eustathius,  he  published  an  edict  ^ 
commanding  severe  measures  to  be  taken  against  the 
dissenters  of  long  standing,  Novatians,  Valentinians, 
Marcionites,  Paulianists,  Montanists,  and  in  general 
against  all  heretics,  forbidding  their  assemblies  and 
confiscating  their  places  of  worship.  In  332  or  333, 
Syncletius  and  Gaudentius,  officials  of  the  imperial 
secretariat  {jiiagistriani),  brought  to  Alexandria  two  letters 
from  the  emperor,  addressed,  one  to  the  bishops  and  the 
faithful,*  the  other  to  Arius  and  the  Arians.^ 

The  latter,  that  to  the  Arians,  which  was  of  consider- 
able length,  was  officially  read  at  the  palace  of  the  prefect, 
whose  name  at  that  time  was  Paterius.  It  is  a  very 
strange  document ;  if  its  authenticity  were  not  guaranteed 
by  so  many  outward  indications,  we  should  scarcely  believe 
that  so  violent  an  invective  against  an  unhappy  exile 
could  ever  have  been  written  by  any  sovereign,  or  in  his 
name.  But  there  is  no  room  for  doubt.  We  learn,  in 
consequence,  that  at  this  time  Constantine  was  still  as 
hostile  as  possible  to  all  those  who  had  caused  trouble  in 
the  Church  of  Alexandria,  and  throughout  the  Eastern 
empire.  However,  at  the  end,  after  threatening  the 
heretics  with  certain  penalties  of  a  pecuniary  character  in 

^  Apol.  contra  Ar.  61,  62. 

^  In  329-330,  he  visited  the  Thebaid  j  in  331-332,  the  Libyan 
provinces  (Pentapolis,  the  oasis  of  Amnion)  ;  in  333-334,  Lower  Egypt 
{Chronicle  of  the  Festal  Letters). 

3   V.  C.  iii.  64,  65. 

*   Toi'S  irov-qpovs  ...  *  Ka^■6s  ip/J.rjVfv^  .  .  . 


p.  172]  CONST ANTINE  AND  ARIUS  137 

case  they  obstinately  continued  to  support  Arius,  he 
addressed  himself  directly  to  the  latter,  inviting  him  to 
come  and  explain  his  position  to  the  "  man  of  God,"  as 
he  styled  himself. 

Arius  required  pressing  before  he  would  comply.  He 
had  sources  of  information  at  court.  The  ex-Empress 
Constantia,^  widow  of  Licinius,  was  well  disposed  to  the 
protig^s  of  her  old  friend,  Eusebius  of  Nicomedia.  She 
died  about  this  time ;  but  before  her  death  she  recom- 
mended to  her  brother,  the  emperor,  a  priest  who  was 
in  her  confidence.-  This  priest  speedily  suggested  that 
Arius  was  not  so  far  from  accepting  the  doctrines  of 
Nicaea  as  was  generally  believed.  The  emperor  allowed 
himself  to  be  convinced,  and  repeated  his  invitation 
in  less  hostile  terms. 

Arius  came,  with  Euzoius,  one  of  his  companions  in 
exile.  He  had  an  interview  with  Constantine,  and  at 
last  succeeded  in  satisfying  him  by  giving  him  a  profession 
of  faith,  which,  though  vague,  was  comparatively  orthodox, 
and  capable  of  being  reconciled  with  the  Creed  of  Nica^a.^ 
The  emperor  declared  himself  satisfied  with  it.  He 
imagined  that,  henceforth,  everyone  being  in  agreement, 
nothing  more  remained  to  be  done  than  to  restore  Arius 
and  his  followers  to  communion  with  the  Bishop  of 
Alexandria,  But  this  Athanasius  refused,^  a  refusal 
which  could  not  fail  to  be  displeasing  in  high  places. 

^  Here  we  are  reduced  to  a  narrative  by  Rufinus,  i.  ii,  repro- 
duced by  Socrates,  i.  25,  and  Sozomen,  ii.  27.  Cf.  p.  131  of  this 
volume,  note  4. 

-  Gelasius  of  Cyzicus  (iii.  12)  has  preserved  his  name  ;  he  was 
called  Eutocius. 

^  This  was  the  beginning  of  it:  "We  believe  in  one  God, 
Father,  Almighty,  and  in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  His  Son,  born 
(yeyevTjiJ.ivov')  of  Him  before  all  ages,  God  the  Word,  by  Whom  every- 
thing has  been  made.  .  .  ."  The  phrase  e't  avroO  yeyevrjfx^vov,  taking 
account  of  the  synonymy  which  still  prevailed  between  yevriTos  and 
y€vv7]T6s^  might  be  considered  as  equivalent  to  (k  t7^s  tov  Uurpbs  oiV/oy. 
It  certainly  excluded  creation  e.v  nihilo.  The  Nicene  homoousios 
is  not  pronounced,  but  Arianism  is  practically  excluded. 

^  Apol.  co7itra  Ar.  59.  We  are  tempted  to  regret  this  refusal, 
when  we  think  of  what  followed. 


138  EUSEBIUS  AND  ATHANASIUS  [ch.  v 

The  intrigues  began  again.  The  story  of  the  broken 
chalice  was  revived.  This  chaHce,  it  was  alleged,  belonged 
to  a  priest,  one  Ischyras,  who  had  a  church  in  Mareotis. 
There  was  actually  in  those  parts  a  certain  Ischyras  who 
had  been  ordained  in  former  days  by  Kolluthus,  but 
whose  ordination  had  not  been  recognized  as  valid,  so  that 
the  people  of  Mareotis  would  not  allow  him  to  exercise 
his  ministry,  and  he  confined  himself  to  oflficiating  in 
his  own  family.  It  was  alleged  that  Athanasius  had 
caused  his  altar  to  be  overturned,  and  had  broken  his 
chalice.  The  truth  of  the  matter  was  that,  when  the 
representatives  of  the  bishop  went  to  visit  Ischyras,  they 
found  him  ill  and  confined  to  his  bed  ;  there  could  have 
been  no  opportunity  for  disturbing  any  form  of  Divine 
Service.  When  Ischyras  returned  to  a  better  state  of 
mind,  he  certified  in  writing  that  he  knew  nothing  of 
the  whole  story.  Athanasius  was  also  accused  of  having 
put  to  death  a  Meletian  bishop,  Arsenius  of  Hypsele, 
after  having  caused  his  hand  to  be  cut  off.  This  Arsenius 
was  afterwards  found  alive  and  in  possession  of  both 
his  hands.  The  Meletians  had  hidden  him  in  a  monastery, 
but  Athanasius  managed  to  discover  his  hiding-place. 
Arsenius,  like  Ischyras,  asked  pardon  in  writing.  It  was 
time,  for  Constantine  had  already  instructed  his  half- 
brother,  the  censor  Delmatius,  to  hold  a  criminal  investi- 
gation in  the  matter.  The  trial  was  abandoned  ;  a  synod 
which  had  been  summoned  in  this  connection,  and  had 
already  assembled  at  Caesarea  in  Palestine,  was  also  counter- 
manded, after  a  long  delay.  The  Bishop  of  Alexandria 
received  a  fresh  letter  from  the  emperor,  couched  in  more 
explicit  terms,  against  the  intriguers  who  had  tried  un- 
successfully  to   ruin    him.     It   was    now    the   year    334.^ 

1  Documents  relating  to  this  affair  are  to  be  found  in  the  Apol. 
contra  Ar:  (i)  Retractation  oflschyras  (<:.  64),  presented  to  Athanasius 
in  the  presence  of  six  priests  and  seven  deacons  ;  (2)  Letter  of 
Pinnes,  a  priest  of  the  monastery  of  Ptemencyris,  in  the  Anteopolitan 
nome,  to  John  Arkaph  {c.  67)  ;  (3)  Letter  of  Arsenius  to  Athanasius 
{c.  69) ;  (4)  Letter  of  Constantine  to  Athanasius,  To?s  -wapa.  ttjs  o-^s  .  .  . 
{c.  68) ;  (5)  Letter  of  Alexander  of  Thessalonica  to  Athanasius  {c.  66) ; 

Letter  of  Constantine  to  John  Arkaph  {c.  70). 


p.  174  r.]       CONSTANTINE^S  TRICENNALIA  i:59 

Jolm  Arkaph,  the  archbishop  of  the  Meletians,  had  become 
temporarily  reconciled  to  Athanasius,  and  was  congratu- 
lated upon  the  fact  by  the  emperor,  who  invited  him  to 
court.  It  was  a  fatal  inspiration.  The  Meletian  chief 
fell  into  bad  company  at  court.  In  the  following  year 
(335),  the  whole  business  was  on  the  point  of  beginning 
again.  The  Meletians  were  once  more  at  variance  with 
Athanasius,  and  leagued  in  their  opposition  to  him  with 
the  Arians  and  their  protectors. 

The  time  was  drawing  near  when  the  emperor  would 
enter  upon  the  thirtieth  year  of  his  reign.  He  resolved 
to  celebrate  this  event  by  a  great  religious  festival,  the 
dedication  of  the  basilica  of  the  Holy  Sepulchre,  which 
was  at  last  completed.  A  great  number  of  bishops  were 
summoned  to  assist  at  the  ceremony.  It  was  suggested 
to  Constantine  that  this  would  be  a  good  opportunity 
for  finally  putting  an  end  to  the  Egyptian  dissensions, 
so  continually  renewed,  and  for  settling  them  by  an 
episcopal  decision.  This  had  already  been  contemplated 
in  the  preceding  year;  since  the  emperor's  solution  of 
these  affairs  had  not  succeeded  in  restoring  peace,  it  was 
quite  natural  that  the  idea  of  a  council  should  again  be 
taken  up.  Was  it  not  much  to  be  desired  that,  before 
celebrating  this  festival  at  Jerusalem,  the  ministers  of 
the  Lord  should  first  be  reconciled  with  one  another  ? 
The  emperor  adopted  this  idea,  and  the  city  of  Tyre  was 
proposed  as  a  meeting-place.  All  the  enemies  of 
Athanasius  in  the  whole  empire  arranged  to  be  present, 
hoping  to  obtain  at  Tyre  their  revenge  for  the  abortive 
Council  of  Csesarea,  and  to  find  means  of  getting  rid  of 
the  troublesome  Bishop  of  Alexandria.  An  imperial 
letter  ^  exhorted  the  council  to  fulfil  its  task  of  peace- 
maker, assuring  it  that  the  resources  of  the  government 
would  ensure  that  all  those  whose  presence  would  be 
useful  should  appear  before  it.  This  assurance  referred 
especially  to  Athanasius.  He  was  invited  to  be  present, 
and  threatened  with  compulsion  if  he  refused.  The  priest 
Macarius  was  brought  to  Tyre,  loaded  with  chains.  A 
'  Eusebius,  V.  C.  iv.  42. 


140  EUSEBIUS  AND  ATHANASIUS  [ch.  v. 

high  official,  Count  Dionysius,  was  sent  on  a  special 
mission  to  the  council. 

Athanasius  submitted.^  Knowing  well  that  he  was 
going  to  appear  before  a  meeting  of  his  enemies,  he  took 
with  him  about  fifty  Egyptian  bishops.  But,  as  these  had 
not  been  summoned,  their  names  did  not  appear  amongst 
the  judges.-  These  had  been  chosen  with  care.  Not  one 
of  the  enemies  of  Athanasius  was  absent.  Even  two 
young  Pannonian  bishops  were  there,  Ursacius  of 
Singidunum  (Belgrade)  and  Valens  of  Mursa  (Eszeg),  two 
disciples  of  Arius  himself,  who  had  taken  advantage  of  his 
exile  to  recruit  adherents  in  those  distant  countries.  The 
Bishop  of  Antioch,  Flaccillus,  was  present,  and  also  Eusebius 
of  Csesarea,  very  much  irritated  at  the  failure  of  the 
council  the  year  before.  Several  other  prelates,  either 
neutral  or  even  fairly  well  disposed  towards  Athanasius, 
such  as  Alexander  of  Thessalonica,  had  also  been  invited. 
But  the  majority  and  the  management  of  the  whole  affair 
were  secured  for  the  adversaries  of  the  BishojD  of 
Alexandria. 

No  question  of  doctrine  was  raised.^  The  Arians  and 
their  party  did  not  take  part  in  the  proceedings,  as  such  : 
the  whole  issue  was  between  Athanasius  and  the  Meletians. 
The  Meletians  had  a  cause  of  complaint  against  him 
which  dated  back  to  the  time  of  his  election  :  the  bishops 
who  took  part  in  it  had  agreed  not  to  ordain  anyone  before 
their  differences  had  been  arranged.'*     The  ordination  took 

^  His  departure  for  Tyre  took  place  on  July  lo,  335. 

■'  According  to  Socrates,  the  council  comprised  (apart  from  the 
Egyptians)  about  sixty  members. 

^  Sozomen  (i.  25)  had  before  him  the  "acts"  of  this  council;  and 
what  he  derives  from  them  is  very  important.  Athanasius'  version  of 
the  facts  is  given  in  the  Apol,  contra  Ar.,  in  which  we  find  first  an 
account  of  some  length,  contained  in  a  letter  from  the  Council  of 
Alexandria  in  340  {cc.  3-19),  then  another  account  by  Athanasius 
himself  {cc.  71-87),  which  contains  several  contemporary  documents. 
We  must  not  neglect  the  version  of  the  other  side,  which  we  know 
through  the  synodal  epistle  of  the  Council  of  the  Easterns  at  Sardica 
(Hilary,  Frag.  hist.  iii.  6,  7)  in  343.  This  document  agrees  fairly 
well  with  the  summary  of  the  "acts"  given  by  Sozomen. 

^  At  the  time  of  the  election,  the  Meletians  were  reconciled  to  the 


r.  177]  COUNCIL  OF  TYRE,  335  141 

place  without  any  regard  being  paid  to  this  agreement ; 
and  therefore  they  had  separated  themselves  from  com- 
munion with  the  newly-consecrated  bishop.  To  force  their 
return,  he  had  employed  violent  measures,  and  in  particular 
imprisonment.  Five  Meletian  bishops,  Euplus,  Pacomius, 
Achillas,  Isaac,  and  Hermaeon,  accused  him  of  having 
caused  them  to  be  beaten  with  rods ;  Ischyras,  again 
changing  sides,  had  joined  the  Meletians ;  he  complained 
that  his  chalice  had  been  broken,  and  his  chair  over- 
thrown ;  Athanasius  had  cast  him  into  prison  several 
times,  and  had  calumniated  him  to  the  prefect  Hyginus, 
alleging  that  he  had  thrown  stones  at  the  emperor's 
statues.  Callinicus,  the  (Meletian)  Bishop  of  Pelusium, 
having  renounced  communion  with  him  on  account  of 
Ischyras'  chalice,  Athanasius  had  deposed  him  and 
replaced  him  by  another.  Arsenius  was  again  spoken  of 
And  finally,  a  memorandum  was  read  of  the  popular  out- 
cries raised  by  persons  at  Alexandria,  who  refused  to  enter 
the  churches  on  account  of  the  bishop.  In  fine,  what  he 
was  reproached  for,  was  the  strong  measures  he  had 
considered  himself  obliged  to  take  against  those  of  the 
Meletian  party  who  had  relapsed. 

Athanasius  succeeded  in  justifying  himself  with  regard 
to  certain  points ;  as  to  others,  he  asked  for  delay. 
Arsenius  was  still  living,  and  owing  to  this  fact  the  worst 
of  the  accusations  fell  to  the  ground.  The  council  fixed 
upon  the  affair  of  Ischyras,  the  interrupted  religious  service 
and  the  broken  chalice.  An  enquiry  was  decided  upon. 
Athanasius  offered  no  opposition  to  this,  but  he  objected 
to  his  most  notorious  enemies  being  entrusted  with  the 
investigations. 

These  were  exactly  the  persons  who  were  chosen,  not 
during  a  general  meeting,  but  in  a  private  conference. 
Moreover,  as  Ischyras  claimed  to  be  the  head  of  a  Meletian 
Church  in  Mareotis,  and  as  everyone  knew  that  Mareotis 
did  not  contain  a  single  Meletian,  the  chiefs  of  this  sect 
sent   recruiters  throughout   Egypt   to  collect   a  group  of 

'Great  Church.'    It  can  only  be  a  question  here  of  secondary  quarrels, 
proceeding,  however,  from  the  previous  separation. 


142  EUSEBIUS  AND  ATHANASIUS  [cii.  v. 

parishioners  for  him.  All  these  intrigues  awakened  a 
protest,  not  only  on  the  part  of  the  Egyptian  prelates,  who 
rallied  faithfully  around  their  Pope,^  but  also  from  the 
Bishop  of  Thessalonica,  a  highly-respected  old  man,  and 
from  Count  Dionysius  himself,  who  held  a  similar  position 
in  this  council  to  that  which  Constantine  had  held  at  the 
Council  of  Nicaea.  But  all  protest  proved  useless ;  the 
high  commissioner  had  his  hand  forced,  and  the  com- 
mission set  out  for  Egypt.  The  enquiry  was  concerned 
with  the  evidence  of  only  one  side.  Not  only  was  the 
priest  Macarius,  who  was  directly  implicated,  detained  at 
Tyre,  but  not  a  single  member  of  the  Athanasian  clergy, 
whether  belonging  to  Alexandria  or  to  Mareotis,  was 
allowed  to  take  part  in  it.  On  the  other  hand,  the  prefect 
of  Egypt,  Philagrius,  lent  his  assistance  to  the  commis- 
sioners sent  by  the  council,  and  conducted  matters  with 
so  high  a  hand  that  they  succeeded  in  obtaining  the 
depositions  they  wished.  The  commission  of  enquiry 
returned  to  Tyre  with  an  overwhelming  mass  of  evidence.^ 
As  to  the  affair  of  Arsenius,  which  appeared  at  first  to 
be  going  contrary  to  the  accusers  of  Athanasius,  they 
explained  it  by  saying  that  a  certain  Plusianus,  a  bishop 
of  the  party  of  Athanasius,  had,  by  his  orders,  burnt  the 
house  of  Arsenius,  caused  him  to  be  tied  to  a  pillar  and 
beaten,  and  then  shut  him  up  in  a  small  hovel.  Arsenius 
had  escaped  through  a  window,  and  had  succeeded  in 
concealing  himself  so  well  that  the  bishops  of  John 
Arkaph's  party,  regretting  the  disappearance  of  a  man  so 
distinguished  and  also  a  former  confessor  of  the  faith,  had 

'  This  term  was  at  that  time,  and  long  remained,  employed  to 
denote  bishops,  whoever  they  might  be.  Later  on,  it  was  reserved 
for  the  Bishop  of  Rome  in  the  West,  and  the  Bishop  of  Alexandria  in 
the  East.     He  still  takes  the  title  of  Pope  in  his  ofificial  style. 

^  At  the  same  time,  the  records  of  this  enquiry  were  so  little  to 
the  honour  of  the  commissioners  that  the  anti-Athanasian  party  tried 
to  conceal  them  as  much  as  possible  ;  but  it  was  known  that  they 
were  drawn  up  by  a  certain  Rufus,  who  afterwards  became  speculator 
to  the  Augustal  prefecture.  Athanasius  was  able  to  invoke  his 
testimony.  Pope  Julius  also,  to  whom  the  documents  were  sent, 
himself  communicated  them  to  Athanasius  {Apol.  contra  Ar.  83). 


p.  179-80]        DEPOSITION  OF  ATHANASIUS  143 

believed  him  to  be  dead,  and  had  caused  a  search  to  be 
made  for  him  by  the  authorities.^  It  was  therefore  quite 
excusable  that  they  should  have  been  mistaken. 

The  proceedings  were  taking  an  unfavourable  turn  for 
Athanasius.  His  enemies  cried  out  upon  him  as  a 
sorcerer,  a  brutal  ruffian,  and  declared  him  unfit  to  be  a 
bishop.  Such  a  tumult  arose  against  the  accused  at  the 
hearing  that  the  officials  present  were  obliged  to  get  him 
away  secretly.  He  himself  understood  that  no  good 
could  be  expected  from  such  judges,  and  he  embarked 
for  Constantinople.  The  council  pronounced  sentence 
of  deposition  against  him  in  his  absence,  and  forbade  him 
to  remain  in  Egypt.  On  the  other  hand,  it  admitted  John 
Arkaph  and  his  followers  to  communion,  considering  them 
as  victims  of  an  unjust  persecution,  and  reinstated  them  in 
their  ecclesiastical  positions.  Formal  intimation  of  these 
decisions  was  sent  to  the  emperor,  to  the  Church  of 
Alexandria,  and  to  the  episcopate  in  general.  The 
bishops  were  entreated  to  have  nothing  more  to  do  with 
Athanasius ;  he  had  been  convicted  upon  every  point 
which  the  council  had  been  able  to  discuss ;  as  to  the 
others,  his  flight  proved  that  he  did  not  feel  himself  in  a 
position  to  make  any  defence.  Already,  during  the 
preceding  year,  he  had  refused  to  appear  before  the 
Council  of  Caesarea ;  this  time,  he  had  come,  but 
surrounded  by  a  numerous  and  turbulent  escort.  Some- 
times he  had  refused  to  defend  himself,  sometimes  he 
insulted  the  other  bishops,  refused  to  appear  before  them, 
and  challenged  their  decision.  His  guilt  in  the  affair  of 
Mareotis  had  been  established. 

When  this  judgment  had  been  pronounced,  the 
council  proceeded  to  Jerusalem,  and  the  dedication  of  the 
Holy  Sepulchre  was  celebrated,  on  September  14,  with  every 
imaginable  pomp  of  worship   and    eloquence.     Eusebius, 

^  In  the  letter  of  Arsenius,  mentioned  before  (p.  138,  note  i),  Bishop 
Plusianus  is  named,  but  no  allusion  is  made  to  the  story  of  the  dis- 
appearance of  Arsenius  himself.  If  Athanasius  {c.  69)  did  not 
expressly  say  so,  we  should  not  believe  the  letter  to  have  been 
written  after  his  adventure. 


144  EUSEBIUS  AND  ATHANASIUS  [ch.  v. 

the  Metropolitan  of  Csesarea,  as  was  to  be  expected, 
particularly  distinguished  himself.  A  further  session  of 
the  council  was  held,  at  Jerusalem  itself,  to  adjudicate  upon 
the  affair  of  Arius  and  his  supporters.  The  profession 
of  faith  presented  to  the  emperor  by  Arius  and  Euzoius, 
the  one  which  Constantine  had  considered  sufficient,  had 
been  sent  by  him  to  the  council :  it  satisfied  the  council  also. 
The  Arians  were  admitted  to  communion;  the  emperor 
was  informed  of  the  fact,  and  it  was  also  notified  both  to 
the  Church  of  Alexandria  and  the  bishops  of  Egypt.^ 

Yet,  on  his  arrival  in  Constantinople,  Athanasius 
succeeded  in  obtaining  an  audience.  And,  impressed  by 
his  complaints,  Constantine  summoned  the  Council  of 
Tyre  to  his  presence.-  But  no  one  obeyed  the  summons 
except  the  most  determined  opponents  of  Athanasius — 
prominent  among  them  being  Eusebius  of  Caesarea,  who 
had  to  pronounce  a  set  oration  on  the  occasion  of  the 
Tricennalia.  Constantine  heard  them.  According  to 
Athanasius,  they  were  very  careful  not  to  enter  on  a  new 
investigation  of  the  stories  discussed  during  the  council, 
and  no  mention  was  made  of  the  chalice  or  of  Arsenius : 
they  had  found  something  much  better.  Athanasius,  they 
told  the  emperor,  was  determined  to  hinder  the  transport 
of  Egyptian  corn  to  Constantinople.  What !  To  starve 
his  own  foundation,  his  beloved  New  Rome !  The 
emperor  made  no  further  enquiries.  Without  waiting  for 
any  new  defence,  he  actually  banished  the  Bishop  of 
Alexandria  to  a  distant  part  of  Gaul.  Athanasius  was 
imprisoned  at  Treves.^ 

When  Athanasius  was  once  more  taken  into  favour, 
people  were  very  ready  to  say  that,  if  he  was  exiled,  it  was 
only  to  protect  him  from  the  fury  of  his  enemies.  It  is 
not  at  all  probable  that  Constantine  would  accept  without 
verification    the    imputation   regarding   the   transport   of 

^  Fragment  of  the  synodal  letter  in  Apol.  contra  Ar.  84. 

2  Letter  of  Constantine,  'E7W  ixlv  d7cow  {Apol.  contra  Ar.  86). 

^  This  is  Athanasius'  account  of  this  last  sudden  change  of  front 
{Apol.  contra  Ar.  87  ;  cf.  c,)  ;  and  he  adduces  the  testimony  of  five 
Egyptian  bishops,  who  heard  the  assertion  of  his  adversaries. 


p.  182]         FIRST  EXILE  OF  ATHANASIUS  145 

corn.  The  best  plan  is  to  see  the  facts  as  the  public  saw 
them  at  that  time,  and  as  Constantine  himself  explained 
them  in  very  weighty  documents.^  The  Bishop  of 
Alexandria  had  been  judged  and  condemned  by  a  great 
assembly  of  his  colleagues.  The  Council  of  Tyre  had 
deposed  him  from  his  episcopal  office,  and  forbidden  him 
to  remain  in  Egypt.  Following  up  this  sentence,  the 
civil  government  took  the  measures  which  were  in  its 
province  :  it  exiled  Athanasius. 

So  ends  the  first  act  of  the  Athanasian  tragedy.  We 
may  be  tempted  to  think,  at  some  points  in  it,  that  things 
might  have  taken,  both  then  and  afterwards,  a  better  turn, 
if  the  young  Bishop  of  Alexandria  had  treated  the 
Meletians  with  less  severity,  and  if  he  had  made  it  easier 
for  the  party  defeated  at  the  Council  of  Nicaia  to  return 
to  the  bosom  of  the  Church.  Without  sacrificing  any 
essential  principle,  he  might  then  have  avoided  exasperat- 
ing the  opposing  parties ;  it  would  not  have  been  so 
easy  for  his  enemies  to  represent  him  to  the  emperor 
as  a  man  impossible  to  deal  with  and  an  instigator  of 
troubles.  Later  on,  Athanasius  became  a  man  of  peace 
and  a  peace-maker ;  but  at  the  time  we  have  now  reached 
he  was,  above  all  things,  a  fighter.  He  was  right ;  but, 
by  the  very  fact  that  he  was  right,  too  many  people  found 
themselves  put  in  the  wrong. 

Arius  remained  at  court.  The  imperial  favour  had 
recalled  him  from  exile  ;  the  decision  of  the  Council  of 
Tyre  had  again  opened  to  him  the  doors  of  the  Church. 
It  only  remained  for  him  to  make  his  official  re-entrance. 
According  to  later  accounts,^  he  did  return  to 
Alexandria,  and  then,  because  of  the  commotion  caused 
by  his  presence,  was  recalled  to  Constantinople.  It  was 
more  in  conformity  with  Constantine's  usual  ways  to 
remove  all  quarrelsome  persons  for  the  time  being  from 
Alexandria,  Arius  as  well  as  Athanasius.     However,  as  he 

'  See,  below,  the  letters  to  St  Antony. 

2  Rufinus,  i.  II,  12  ;  Socrates,  i.  37  ;  Sozomen,  ii.  29.  Athanasius, 
even  in  his  letter  to  Serapion  on  the  death  of  Arius,  does  not  speak 
of  this  journey. 

II  K 


146  EUSEBIUS  AND  ATHANASIUS  [ch.  v. 

considered  the  declarations  of  Arius  to  be  sincere  and 
sufficient,  he  exerted  his  influence  to  persuade  the  Bishop 
of  Constantinople/  Alexander,  to  admit  him.  Alexander 
did  not  look  upon  him  with  favour.  But  Arius  died 
suddenly ;  and  Alexander  was  thus  spared  the  mortifica- 
tion of  receiving  him  in  his  Church.  Athanasius  had 
already  gone  to  his  place  of  exile  ;  but  Macarius,  one  of  his 
priests,  was  at  Constantinople  at  the  time.  It  is  from  his 
account  that,  twenty-five  years  later,  Athanasius  related 
the  mournful  end  of  his  adversary.^ 

At  Alexandria  the  bishop's  throne  remained  unoccupied. 
No  attempt  was  even  made,  for  the  time  being,  to  appoint 
a  successor  to  the  exiled  bishop  ;  either  because  the  emperor 
did  not  wish  it,  or  more  probably  because  the  Christian 
population  did  not  appear  disposed  to  agree  to  it. 

There  were  disturbances.^  The  faithful  continued  to 
demand  the  restoration  of  their  bishop,  both  by  public 
manifestations  and  in  the  churches,  Antony,  the  famous 
hermit  of  the  desert,  was  called  upon  to  intervene,  and 
he  wrote  several  times  to  the  emperor.     But  all  was  in 

1  A  letter  of  Constantine  to  Alexander,  relating  to  this  affair,  has 
been  preserved  in  the  collection  of  Gelasius  of  Cyzicus  (iii.  15,  in 
Ceriani,  Monumenta  sacra.,  vol.  i.,  p.  145),  not  entire,  but  only  in 
extracts  :  EiVep  ovv  rrjs  ei>  ^iKaiq.  iKTedelcrrjs  dpO^s  Kai  elaael  ^di(Tt]S 
airoaToXiKrjs  wiffreu^  avmroiovfxivovs  aiiTovs  evprjTe — tovto  yap  Kal  i(p'  i]p.u)v 
(ppovelv  dia^e^aiujcravTO — Trpovorjaare  iravTuv,  irapaKoKu).  In  the  title,  the 
document  is  represented  as  addressed  to  Alexander,  Bishop  of 
Alexandria.  Ceriani,  for  this  reason,  pronounces  it  apocryphal ; 
Loeschcke  {Rheinisches  Musemn,  1906,  p.  44  et  seg.)  accepts  it  as 
authentic,  and  tries  to  reconcile  it  with  the  facts  known  regarding  the 
episcopate  of  Alexander.  But  this  is  difficult,  especially  in  view  of 
the  fact  that  Arius  and  Euzoius  are  mentioned  together  in  this  letter, 
just  as  they  appear  together  in  the  proceedings  of  the  year  333.  The 
best  course,  as  it  seems  to  me,  is  to  remove  the  Gelasian  rubric,  or  to 
conjecture  that,  in  its  original  form,  it  read  only  7r/)6s  'AXe^avBpop 
iwlaKoirov,  without  'AXe^avdpeias.  Neither  the  fragments  of  the  text, 
nor  the  place  it  occupies  in  the  collection  of  Gelasius,  give  any 
indication  that  it  was  addressed  to  Athanasius'  predecessor, 

2  Arius  is  said  to  have  died  in  a  privy.  Upon  this  event,  see 
£p.  ad  Serapionem  de  morte  Arii  and  Ep.  ad  episcopos  Aeg.  et  Libyae, 
c,  19. 

^  Upon  this,  see  Sozomen,  ii.  31  ;  cf.  Athan.  Apol.  coni?-a  Ar.  17, 


p.  184 J  THE  MELETIANS  147 

vain.  Four  priests  were  arrested  and  exiled.  Constantine 
wrote  to  the  people  of  Alexandria,  and  especially  to  the 
clergy  and  the  consecrated  virgins,  advising  them  to 
keep  quiet,  and  declaring  that  he  would  not  go  back 
upon  his  decision  or  recall  an  instigator  of  disturbance, 
who  had  been  condemned  in  proper  form  by  an  ecclesi- 
astical tribunal.  To  St  Antony  he  explained  that  un- 
doubtedly some  of  the  judges  might  have  been  influenced 
in  their  decision  by  hatred  or  partiality,  but  that  he 
could  not  believe  that  so  numerous  an  assembly  of  wise 
and  enlightened  bishops  could  all  have  been  so  far 
mistaken  as  to  condemn  an  innocent  man.  Athanasius 
was  a  presumptuous  and  over-bearing  fellow,  a  man  of 
strife. 

The  Meletians,  restored  to  their  position  by  the 
Council  of  Tyre,  lost  no  time  in  seeking  to  reap  the  fruits 
of  their  success.  They  certainly  did  this  with  little 
restraint,  for  their  leader,  John  Arkaph,  was  exiled  like 
his  opponents.  The  Egyptians,  to  whatever  party  they 
belonged,  were  certainly  very  difficult  people  to  deal 
with.  Ischyras  alone  had  any  reason  to  congratulate  him- 
self upon  all  these  changes ;  for,  as  a  reward  for  his 
labours,  the  Meletian  party  promoted  him  to  the 
episcopate.  In  his  own  village,^  so  small  that  hitherto 
it  had  never  even  possessed  a  priest,  they  built  him,  at  the 
expense  of  the  State,  a  cathedral  in  which  he  could  play 
the  7'dle  of  a  bishop. 

It  was  not  in  Egypt  only  that  the  victorious  party 
followed  up  the  advantage  they  had  gained,  assisted  here 
and  there  by  the  excesses  of  zeal  and  the  mistakes  of 
their  adversaries.  Since  the  end  of  the  Great  Persecution, 
the  Church  of  Ancyra  had  had  as  its  bishop  a  certain 
Marcellus,  a  good  man  with  some  knowledge  of  theology. 
At  the  Council  of  Nicsea,  he  had  attracted  notice  by  the 
vigour  of  his  opposition  to  the  opinions  of  Arius,  and 
so  successfully  that  he  had  made  a  very  favourable  im- 
pression upon  the  legates  from  Rome.     During  the  years 

'  'Ei'  TbiTi^  'Elp-qfTis  ^eKovrapovpov.     Letter  from  the  Rationalis  of  Egypt 
to  the  tax-collector  of  Mareotis  (Athan.,  Apol.  contra  Ar.  85). 


148  EUSEBIUS  AND  ATHANASIUS  [ch.  y. 

which  followed,  he  continued  to  assail  by  his  speeches  the 
two  Eusebii,  PauHnus,  and  other  more  or  less  declared 
upholders  of  the  defeated  heresy.  At  that  time,  people 
did  not  run  the  risk  involved  in  expressing  their  opinions 
in  writing.  The  theology  of  the  Arian  party  was  only 
represented  to  the  public  by  the  addresses  of  Asterius,^ 
which  finally  appeared  in  the  form  of  a  small  book.  As 
no  one  else  seemed  inclined  to  do  so,  Marcellus  took  the 
lecturer  in  hand  and,  to  refute  him,  compiled  a  work 
of  considerable  proportions,  in  which  he  vigorously  assailed 
the  principal  leaders  of  the  opposite  party,  both  living 
and  dead,  Paulinus,  Narcissus,  Eusebius  of  Csesarea, 
Eusebius  of  Nicomedia,  and  the  rest.  Even  Origen  him- 
self was  not  spared.  Marcellus  was  present  at  the 
Council  of  Tyre,  but  refused  to  join  in  the  condemnation 
of  Athanasius  and  the  restoration  of  Arius ;  he  even 
refused  to  take  part  in  the  celebrations  at  the  dedication 
of  the  Holy  Sepulchre.^  On  the  other  hand,  his  book 
being  finished,  he  went  to  present  it  to  the  emperor,  with 
a  dedication  full  of  compliments.  Constantine  perhaps 
looked  upon  this  gift  with  some  suspicion  ;  at  all  events, 
he  commissioned  the  bishops  who  had  assembled  in 
Constantinople,  after  the  ceremonies  at  Jerusalem,  to 
examine  the  book  and  to  make  him  a  report  upon  it. 
This  was  to  deliver  Marcellus  into  the  hands  of  his 
enemies.  They  discovered  in  his  work  lamentable  traces 
of  the  Sabellian  heresy.  A  sentence  of  deposition  was 
pronounced  against  him,  and  then  communicated  to  the 
emperor,  to  the  Eastern  bishops,  and  to  the  Church  of 
Ancyra ;  Marcellus,  after  an  episcopate  of  more  than 
twenty  years,  was  given  a  successor  in  the  person  of  a 
certain  Basil.  The  latter,  as  we  shall  see,  will  himself 
play  a  part  of  some  importance  in  the  future.  However, 
as  many  people  cried  out  against  the  proceedings  as  a 
scandal,  and  represented  Marcellus  as  an  innocent  victim, 
the  council  asked  the  learned  Bishop  of  Caesarea  to  justify 
its  decision  by  exposing  and  refuting  the  errors  of  the 
man  whom  they  had  condemned.  This  is  the  subject 
1  See  p.  io8  supra.  '^  Socrates,  i.  36 ;  Sozomen,  ii.  33. 


V.  187]  MARCELLUS  OF  ANCYRA  149 

of  his  two  books  Against  Marce/lus,  which  were  immedi- 
ately published.  A  short  time  afterwards,  he  resumed 
the  same  subject  in  a  second  work,  dedicated  to  Flaccillus, 
the  Bishop  of  Antioch,  and  divided  into  three  books, 
entitled,  The  Theology  of  the  Church. 

To  judge  from  Eusebius'  extracts,  which  are  of 
sufficient  length  to  enable  us  to  base  an  estimate  upon 
them,  the  system  of  Marcellus  did  really  approach 
Sabellianism,  although,  for  all  that,  the  two  theologies 
were  not  identical.  The  SabelHans  of  that  time  ^  imagined 
God  as  a  monad  who  extends  Himself  {ifKarvverai)  in  a 
Trinity.  The  designations,  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Spirit, 
mean  three  successive  manifestations,  three  roles  (-TrpoV- 
wira,  personae).  As  Father,  God  is  the  Law-giver  of  the 
Old  Testament,  as  Son  He  manifests  Himself  in  the 
Incarnation,  as  Holy  Spirit  in  the  sanctification  of  souls. 
These  expansions  are  temporary :  they  are  caused  by 
the  needs  of  the  creature.  When  once  this  need  has 
ceased,  the  expansion  equally  ceases,  and  the  Divinity 
again  draws  itself  in.  This  double  movement  of  expansion 
and  contraction  (TrAarfcr/xo?,  crfo-roXj/)  may  be  compared 
to  an  arm  which  is  stretched  out  and  then  drawn  back 
again.  The  world,  towards  which  these  successive  expan- 
sions are  produced,  is  the  work  of  God  considered  under 
another  aspect,  that  of  Word.  The  manifestation  Word, 
differing  therein  from  the  other  manifestations,  is  permanent: 
it  lasts  as  long  as  the  world  lasts.  The  same  cannot  be 
said  of  the  Son  of  God.  The  SabelHans  were  not  agreed 
upon  the  subject  of  the  Divine  Sonship :  some  made  it 
to  consist  in  the  humanity  of  the  Christ  {rov  uvQpwTrov  ov 
aveXa^ev  6  Hutri'ip)  -^ ;  others  in  the  blend  of  the  Word 
and  humanity  ;  others  again  said  that  the  Word  assumes 
the  character  of  Son  at  the  moment  of  the  Incarnation. 
This    Incarnation    was   transitory;    it   ceased    before   the 

'  This  exposition  is  based  on  St  Athanasius,  in  his  fourth  treatise 
against  the  Arians., 

-  In  this  explanation,  however,  the  personality  is  attached  to  the 
divine  element  j  it  is  not  to  be  based  upon  the  character  of 
Son. 


150  EUSEBIUS  AND  ATHANASIUS        [cii.   v. 

sending  of  the  Holy  Spirit  ^ ;  the  manifestation  Son  then 
came  to  an  end  ;  the  divine  arm  was  drawn  back  again. 
What,  then,  became  of  the  humanity  of  Christ,  when  the 
Incarnation  had  once  ceased?  We  have  no  information 
on  this  point. 

Marcellus,^  also,  taught  a  kind  of  divine  expansion 
(TrAarucTyUo?).  How  could  the  monad  have  always  remained 
a  monad,  and  yet  produce  the  world  ?  The  eternal  Reason 
of  God  (Aoyof)  proceeds  forth  outside  the  Godhead  in 
some  manner  {irpoepxerai)  by  an  active  energy  (evepyeia 
SpacTTiKii)  without  ceasing  to  remain  in  God.  In  this  way 
the  Creation  and  the  Incarnation  are  explained ;  a  subse- 
quent irradiation  of  the  Logos  produces  the  manifestation 
of  the  Holy  Spirit.^  These  irradiations  do  not  give  rise  to 
the  production  of  distinct  Jiypostases ;  there  is  only  One 
divine  hypostasis.  At  the  end  of  all  things,  when  once 
the  reign  of  a  thousand  years  is  over,  the  irradiation  will 
cease,  and  the  Logos,  as  well  as  the  Holy  Spirit  which 
emanated  from  Him,  will  return  to  the  Bosom  of  God. 
Before  the  Incarnation,  and  here  Marcellus  invoked  on  his 
side  the  language  of  Scripture,  there  was  only  the  Word. 
It  was  by  the  Incarnation  alone  that  the  Word  became 
Son*;  He  will  cease  to  be  Son,  when  His  reign  on  earth 
comes  to  an  end. 

With  this  system,  embracing  conceptions  which 
were  very  ancient,  and  assuredly  foreign  to  Origen's 
theology  and  anterior  to  it,  Marcellus  defended  very 
stoutly  the  idea  of  the  Divine  Mouarchia,  the  consubstan- 
tiality ;  and  in  this  respect  he  was,  from  a  polemical  point 

'  We  may  notice  how  this  feature  agrees  with  the  fact  that,  in 
Cyrenaica,  at  the  time  of  St  Dionysius  of  Alexandria,  the  Son  of  God 
was  no  longer  preached  (Athan.  De  sentcntia  Diottysii,  5). 

-  On  Marcellus,  see  the  book  of  Th.  Zahn,  Marcellus  von  Ancyra 
(Gotha,  1867),  and  especially  the  memoir  of  Loofs  in  the  Reports  of  the 
Berlin  Academy,  1902,  p.  764. 

^  Thus,  up  to  this  point,  Marcellus'  Trinity  has  only  two  terms  ;  it 
is  a  "  Binity."  ^ 

■*  This  opinion  had  the  advantage  of  cutting  short  the  Arian 
arguments  as  to  the  necessary  priority  of  the  begetter  to  the  begotten  ; 
but  it  did  away  with  any  idea  of  Divine  generation. 


r.  189]  THEOLOGY  OF  MARCELLUS  151 

of  view,  on  the  same  lines  as  the  Roman  Church,  the  Council 
of  Nicaea,  and    St    Athanasius.     But   these   allied   forces 
were  confronted  with  an  opposition,  the  claims  of  which 
were  not  all  destined  to  be  overthrown.     Arius,  Eusebius, 
and  similar  theologians  had  tradition  against  them,  when 
they  attacked  the  eternity  of  the  Word  and  His  absolute 
Divinity ;    but   tradition   was   on    their   side,   when    they 
defended  the  real    distinction   of  the   hypostases.     Upon 
this  point,  their  contention  finally  gained    the  day,  after 
many    struggles    and    eliminations,   when    men    had    at 
last  grown  weary  of  an  impious  warfare,  when  they  con- 
sented to  give  each  other  the  credit  of  being  really  sincere, 
and  to  listen  to  each  other's  arguments,  and  when,  without 
actually  expressing  it  in  words,  without  proclaiming  them- 
selves  victors   or   avowing   themselves    vanquished,   they 
resigned    themselves    to    combine   together   the   consub- 
stantiality  and    the  three  hypostases.      But  that  time  of 
peace  was  still  far   away.     At  the   end    of  Constantine's 
reign,  so  far  as  the  fighting  propensities  of  the  opposite 
parties  had  not  been  stifled  by  government  pressure,  they 
were   determined   to   triumph    over    each   other,   and    to 
exterminate  one  another  />er /as  ox  per  nefas. 

Eustathius,  Athanasius,  and  Marcellus,  three  of  the 
principal  champions  of  Nicaea,  were  already  disqualified 
from  taking  further  part  in  the  battle,  the  last  of  them,  at 
least,  on  account  of  heresy,  a  fact  which  was  well  calculated 
to  throw  obloquy  on  the  term  '  consubstantial,'  and  to 
prove  that  behind  this  formula,  which  was  so  strongly 
insisted  upon,  dangerous  doctrines  might  be  hidden. 
Other  bishops  succumbed  to  the  malice  of  the  victorious 
party.^  But,  in  spite  of  all,  the  Creed  of  Nicaea  still  held 
its  ground.  At  Tyre,  no  steps  had  been  taken  directly 
against  it.  The  restoration  of  Arius  could  not  be  inter- 
preted as  an  abandonment  of  the  celebrated  formula :  the 

'  St  Athanasius  {^Apologia  de  fuga,  3;  Hist.  Ar.  5)  mentions 
several  of  these  :  Asclepas  of  Gaza,  who,  according  to  the  synodal 
letter  of  the  Easterns  at  the  Council  of  Sardica  (Hil.  Frag.  hist.  Hi. 
11),  had  been  condemned  seventeen  years  before,  possibly  in 
326 ;    Hellanicus  of  Tripoli,    Cartcrius  of  Antaradus,    Cymatius  of 


152  EUSEBIUS  AND  ATHANASIUS  [ch.  v. 

profession  of  faith  delivered  by  the  arch-heretic  to  the 
emperor  was  held  to  be  equivalent  to  that  of  the  three 
hundred  bishops.  Yet  we  cannot  deny  that  by  admitting 
the  substitution  of  one  formula  for  another  a  door  was 
opened  to  many  subterfuges. 

In  the  meantime,  Constantine  died,  on  May  22,  337, 
after  having  been  baptized  in  a  villa  near  Nicomedia.  It 
was  the  bishop  of  that  city,  the  aged  Eusebius,  the 
indefatigable  champion  of  Arius,  who  officiated  at  the 
final  initiation  of  the  first  Christian  Emperor.  His 
colleague  and  namesake  of  Caesarea  began  at  once  to 
compile  the  funeral  oration  in  four  books,  known  by  the 
name  of  the  Life  of  Constantine,  an  evidence  of  his  enthusi- 
astic admiration  for  what  he  considered  the  good  actions 
of  the  deceased  emperor,  and  of  his  skill  in  disguising  the 
others.  No  trace  is  found  there  of  the  murder  of  Crispus 
and  that  of  Fausta;  the  author  has  discovered  a  way  of 
telling  the  story  of  the  Councils  of  Nicaea  and  of  Tyre, 
and  the  ecclesiastical  events  connected  with  them,  without 
even  mentioning  the  names  of  Athanasius  and  of  Arius. 
It  is  a  triumph  of  reticence  and  of  circumlocution. 

Paltus,  Euphraiion  of  Balanea,  Cyrus  of  Berca,  in  Northern  Syria  ; 
Diodorus  {of  Tenedos),  in  Asia  ;  Theodulus  and  Olymptus  {of  Actios), 
in  Thrace,  with  two  successive  bishops  of  Adrianople,  Etitropii4s  and 
Lucius :  the  first  was  a  declared  enemy  of  Eusebius  of  Nicomedia, 
and  Basilina,  Constantine's  sister-in-law,  had  a  strong  grudge  against 
him  ;  Doinnio  of  Sinnium ;  and  finally,  the  Bishop  of  Constantinople, 
Paul,  who  succeeded  Alexander  in  336, 


CHAPTER   VI 

THE   EMPEROR   CONSTANS 

The  heirs  of  Constantine.  Return  of  Athanasius.  Intrigues  of 
Eusebius  ;  the  rivalry  of  Pistus.  The  Pope  is  made  cognizant 
of  the  Alexandrian  affair.  The  intrusion  of  Gregory.  Athanasius 
in  Rome.  The  Easterns  and  Pope  Julius.  Roman  Council  in 
340.  Cancelling  of  the  sentences  pronounced  in  the  East  against 
Athanasius  and  Marcellus.  Constans  sole  Emperor  in  the  West. 
Dedication  Council  at  Antioch  in  341.  Death  of  Eusebius  of 
Nicomedia.  Paul  of  Constantinople.  Council  of  Sardica :  the 
Eastern  schism.  Negotiations.  Condemnation  of  Photinus. 
Athanasius  recalled  to  Alexandria.  African  affairs.  The  Circum- 
cellians.  Mission  of  Paul  and  Macarius.  Unity  restored : 
Council  under  Gratus. 

Constantine  had  three  brothers,  the  sons  of  Constantius 
Chlorus  and  Theodora:  Delmatius,  Julius  Constantius, 
and  Hannibah'an.  Having  little  in  common  with  the 
Empress  Helena,  as  we  can  well  understand,  they  remained 
for  a  long  time  at  a  distance  from  the  court.  Their 
residence  was  first  at  Toulouse,  but  in  the  end  they  drew 
nearer  to  the  emperor,  and  after  the  death  of  Helena 
they  attained  high  honours.  Delmatius  was  appointed 
consul  in  333,  and  even  invested  with  the  office  of  censor, 
which  lay  outside  the  ordinary  course.  In  consequence  of 
this  he  had  to  occupy  himself  with  the  accusations  made 
against  Athanasius.  Julius  Constantius  also  received  in 
335  the  honour  of  the  consulship.  In  regard  to  the  third, 
Hannibalian,  we  have  no  similar  information  ;  and  it  is 
probable  that  he  died  early,  and  certainly  before  Con- 
stantine. Julius  Constantius  had  four  children — two  sons 
and  a  daughter  by  his  first  wife,  and  one  son  of  his  second 
marriage  with  Basilina.     This  last  son  afterwards  became 

163 


154  THE  EMPEROR  CONSTANS  [ch.  vi. 

the  Emperor  Julian  ;  and  one  of  the  two  others,  Gallus,  was 
Caesar  under  Constantius.  These  children  were  still  too 
young,  at  the  time  of  Constantine's  death,  for  him  to  have 
taken  any  account  of  them  in  his  political  arrangements.  It 
was  otherwise  with  the  two  sons  of  Delmatius.  The  one 
of  these,  also  called  Delmatius,  was  created  Caesar  in  335  ; 
the  other,  Hannibalian,  was  provided,  under  the  title  of 
King  of  Pontus,  with  a  sort  of  vassal  sovereignty  in  the 
provinces  bordering  on  Armenia.  A  new  tetrarchy  was 
to  replace  the  united  empire  of  Constantine.  In  the  West, 
Constantine  II.  was  to  reign  over  Gaul,  Britain,  and 
Spain ;  in  the  East,  Constantius  with  the  vassal  king, 
Hannibalian,  was  to  govern  Asia  Minor,  Syria,  and 
Egypt;  Italy,  Africa,  and  the  provinces  of  the  Upper 
Danube  were  assigned  to  Constans,  the  third  son  of 
Constantine ;  and  all  the  rest,  as  far  as  the  Bosphorus, 
was  to  be  the  inheritance  of  the  Caesar  Delmatius. 

Such  were  Constantine's  intentions ;  but  they  were  not 
entirely  realized.  After  his  funeral,  events  happened  in 
Constantinople  in  regard  to  which  we  are  badly  informed : 
palace  intrigues,  barrack  conspiracies,  demonstrations  of 
troops,  seditions  and  massacres.  Constantius,  the  only 
one  of  the  three  brothers  then  present  in  Constantinople, 
allowed  many  things  to  be  done  which  he  might  have 
prevented.  The  emperor's  brothers  were  massacred  ;  and 
so  were  the  Caesar  Delmatius  and  King  Hannibalian ; 
the  eldest  son  of  Julius  Constantius  shared  his  father's 
fate;  the  two  others,  Gallus  and  Julian,  escaped — Julian, 
thanks  to  the  intervention  of  a  Syrian  bishop,  Mark  of 
Arethusa.  The  praetorian  prefect,  Ablavius,  was  also 
murdered,  and  so  was  the  patrician  Optatus,  brother-in-law 
of  the  deceased  emperor.^  The  pretext  for  these  horrors 
was  that  only  the  sons  of  Constantine  ought  to  have 
a  share  in  the  succession  to  him. 

There  were  three  children.  The  eldest,  Constantine 
II.,  was  not  yet  twenty-one:  the  second,  Constantius, 
was   twenty :   the   third,  Constans,   was   entering   on   his 

1  He  had  married  Anastasia,  one  of  the  three  daughters  of 
Constantius  Chlorus. 


r.  11J4]  THE  SONS  OF  CONSTANTINE  155 

fifteenth  year.  In  the  course  of  the  summer  they  all 
three  met  at  Viminacium,  on  the  banks  of  the  Danube, 
and  agreed  together  to  allow  Constans  to  inherit  all  the 
provinces  left  without  a  ruler  by  the  death  of  Delmatius. 
Thus,  the  youngest  of  the  three  princes  was  the  best 
provided  for;  however,  Constantine  II.  claimed  a  sort 
of  guardianship  over  him.  All  three  assumed  the  title 
of  Augustus  on  September  9,  337. 

The  sons  of  Constantine  had  been  brought  up  in 
the  Christian  faith.  Their  interest  was  soon  excited  by 
religious  questions.  They  agreed  together  to  grant  per- 
mission to  all  the  exiled  bishops  to  return  to  their  flocks. 
In  its  wide  extent,  this  measure  of  clemency  was  not 
without  inconvenient  consequences.  Several  of  the  re- 
called prelates  had  already  been  provided  with  successors  : 
all  had  left  behind  them  supporters  and  opponents ;  and 
their  reinstatement  gave  rise  to  disturbances.  This  was 
the  case  in  Adrianople,  Constantinople,  Ancyra,  and  Gaza.^ 
A  few  days  after  the  death  of  his  father,^  Constantine  II. 
had  set  Athanasius  free,  and  had  written  to  the  "  Catholic  " 
Church  of  Alexandria  to  announce  this  fact,  and  to  say 
that  the  step  was  only  the  fulfilment  of  the  wishes  of  the 
late  emperor.  At  Viminacium  Athanasius  met  Constantius, 
the  prince  with  whom  henceforward  he  had  specially  to 
deal.  Constantius,  notwithstanding  his  youth,  was  a  stiff 
and  solemn  person,  of  overwhelming  vanity.  He  could 
not  have  been  specially  pleased  to  see  the  return  of  a  man 
who,  for  ten  years,  had  had  the  reputation  in  the  East 
of  a  sower  of  trouble.  It  was  perhaps  on  account  of  his 
ill-will  that  Athanasius  was  so  long  on  his  homeward 
journey.  Bishop  and  prince  met  again  at  Caesarea  in 
Cappadocia.  Athanasius  took  good  care  not  to  speak 
to  the  emperor  of  his  adversaries,  Eusebius  of  Nicomedia 
and  others.  On  his  way  to  Egypt  he  was  more  than 
once  mixed  up  with  the  quarrels  provoked  by  the  return 

'  Ep.  Oriental.  (Hil.  Frag.  hist.  iii.  9). 

-  The  letter  is  dated  from  Treves,  xv.  kal.jul.  (June  17)  ;  Constan- 
tine II.  still  bears  in  it  the  title  of  Caesar,  which  he  relinquished 
three  months  later  for  that  of  Augustus. 


156  THE  EMPEROR  CONSTANS  [ch.  vi. 

of  the  exiles.  Later  on,  he  was  accused  of  taking  a 
prominent  part  in  their  reinstallation,  and  even  of  ordain- 
ing new  bishops  in  place  of  those  already  in  possession.^ 
At  Alexandria  the  conflict  had  already  begun,  even  before 
his  arrival,  and  the  authorities  were  obliged  to  intervene.'^ 
At  length  Athanasius  re-entered  the  city,  on  November  23, 
337,^  after  an  absence  of  more  than  two  years. 

His  enemies  took  care  not  to  leave  him  in  peace  there. 
Eusebius  of  Nicomedia  was  in  high  favour  with  the  new 
sovereign  of  the  East.  He  could  not  allow  his  revenge 
to  be  snatched  from  his  grasp  nor  the  decisions  of  the 
Council  of  Tyre  to  be  lightly  regarded.  Athanasius,  it 
was  true,  had  been  warmly  welcomed  by  his  faithful  flock, 
and  his  popularity  in  Egypt  was  great.  It  would  have 
been  more  prudent  not  to  continue  the  attack  on  this 
energetic  man,  so  fertile  in  resource.  But  was  it  possible 
to  think  of  yielding?  "Let  us  rather  annihilate  every- 
thing :  such  is  the  Church's  spirit,"  thought  the  aged 
Eusebius,  like  Boileau's  canon. 

'  "  Per  omnem  viam  reditus  sui  Ecclesiam  subvertebat ;  damnatos 
episcopos  aliquos  restaurabat,  aliquibus  spem  ad  episcopatus  reditum 
promittebat ;  aliquos  ex  infidelibus  constituebat  episcopos,  salvis 
et  integris  permanentibus  sacerdotibus,  per  pugnas  et  caedes  gentil- 
ium,  nihil  respiciens  leges,  desperationi  tribuens  totum." — Ep.  Or., 
loc.  cit.  8. 

■■^  Apol.  contra  Ar.  3. 

^  The  Festal  Chronicle  seems  to  indicate  the  year  338.  Such 
a  delay  would  be  inexplicable  :  but,  as  the  Chronicle  assigns  to  the 
same  year  the  death  of  Constantine  and  the  return  of  Athanasius, 
it  is  possible  that  it  really  refers  to  the  year  337,  just  as,  a  little 
before,  it  places  the  Council  of  Tyre  in  336  instead  of  335.  The 
Xth  Festal  Letter,  for  the  Easter  of  338,  begins  by  complaints 
of  the  afflictions  to  which  Athanasius  is  exposed  on  the  part  of  his 
enemies,  who  are  detaining  him  at  the  ends  of  the  world,  and  prevent 
him  from  celebrating  Easter  with  his  flock.  It  would  seem,  therefore, 
as  if  during  the  winter,  337-338,  Athanasius  were  still  at  Treves.  But 
the  letter  ends  by  expressing  the  joy  which  the  bishop  feels  at 
the  end  of  his  persecution  and  the  prospect  of  celebrating  the  feasts 
in  company  with  his  Church  as  they  had  been  wont  to  do.  It  is 
evident  that  the  beginning  of  one  letter  (that  of  337)  has  been 
joined  on  to  the  end  of  another  (that  of  338). 


p.  197]  RETURN  OF  ATHANASIUS  157 

The  first  measures  adopted  were  of  a  very  elumsy 
character.  The  supporters  of  Arius,  even  before  the 
death  of  their  master,  formed  at  Alexandria  a  well- 
organized  group  whom  the  excommunications  of  Athan- 
asius  kept  excluded  from  the  Great  Church.  It  was 
decided  ^  that  they  should  be  given  a  bishop  of  their  own, 
and  that  an  effort  should  be  made  to  secure  his  recognition 
abroad  as  the  legitimate  head  of  the  Church  of  Alexandria. 
With  this  end  in  view,  they  chose  one  of  the  earliest 
converts  to  Arianism,  Pistus,  formerly  a  priest  in 
Mareotis,  who  had  been  deposed,  at  the  same  time  as 
Arius  himself,  by  Bishop  Alexander.  Secundus,  the 
ex-Bishop  of  Ptolemais,  condemned  at  the  same  time  as 
he  was,  ordained  him  on  the  spot."  Everyone  pretended 
to  look  upon  Pistus  as  a  brother,  to  conduct  a  considerable 
correspondence  with  him ;  and  letters  were  written  to 
various  bishops,  in  order  to  induce  them  to  enter 
into  communion  with  him.^  His  friends  even  addressed 
themselves  to  Pope  Julius,  to  whom  a  deputation  was 
sent  consisting  of  a  priest  named  Macarius,  with  two 
deacons,  Hesychius  and  Martyrius.  These  persons 
brought  to  Rome  records  of  the  proceedings  of  the  Council 
of  Tyre,  in  order  to  make  it  clear  that  Athanasius,  having 
been  deposed  in  due  form,  could  no  longer  be  regarded  as 
Bishop  of  Alexandria. 

Athanasius  replied  to  this  attack  by  a  synodal  letter  of 
all  the  Egyptian  bishops  :  the  story  of  the  Council  of  Tyre 
was  there  related  from  his  point  of  view,  and  thoroughly 
sifted ;  at  the  same  time,  the  existing  position  of  affairs 
was  described,  the  unanimity  of  the  Egyptian  episcopate, 
the  reduction  of  the  opposition,  as  usual,  to  the  Meletian 
clergy  and  some  few  of  Pistus'  flock.  Some  Alexandrian 
priests  set  out  for  Italy  with  this  document.  They  were 
the  bearers  of  letters  not  only  to  the  Pope,  but  also  to  the 

'  This  intrusion  of  Pistus  may  very  well  have  been  before  the 
return  of  Athanasius. 

2  Supra,  pp.  103,  122,  and  131  (note  5). 

=•  Letter  of  the  Bishops  of  Egypt,  ApoL  contra  Ar.  19  ;  letter  of 
Pope  Julius,  ibid.  24. 


158  THE  EMPEROR  CONSTANS  [ch.  vi. 

Emperors  Constantine  II.  and  Constans,  with  whom 
attempts  were  being  made  to  damage  the  credit  of 
Athanasius.  It  was  alleged  that  his  return  had  not  been 
well  received  at  Alexandria,  and  that  the  opposition  of  the 
people  had  had  to  be  forcibly  overcome  by  the  police ; 
that  he  was  selling,  for  his  own  profit,  the  corn  which  the 
emperors  were  wont  to  entrust  to  the  Bishop  of  Alexandria 
for  distribution  to  the  poor  of  Egypt  and  of  Libya.^  These 
innuendoes  had  been  brought  to  the  notice  previously  of 
Constantius  himself,  the  more  effectually  to  prejudice  him. 

It  was  about  this  time  that  Eusebius  of  Nicomedia, 
having  succeeded  for  the  second  time  in  driving  from 
Constantinople  the  unfortunate  Bishop  Paul,  translated 
himself  into  his  place,  leaving  the  see  of  Nicomedia  to 
Amphion,  who  had  been  appointed  as  a  substitute  to 
himself  during  his  own  exile.  Eusebius  of  Caesarea  was 
perhaps  no  longer  living ;  for,  after  the  death  of 
Constantine,  we  hear  of  him  no  more  :  he  appears  to  have 
been  swallowed  up  in  the  funeral  oration  of  the  great 
emperor,  and  in  the  observance  of  his  memory.^ 

The  arrival  in  Rome  of  the  representatives  of 
Athanasius  was  an  unpleasant  surprise  for  Macarius.  He 
at  once  departed  for  the  East,  leaving  behind  him  his  two 
companions.  The  latter,  seeing  their  assertions  contra- 
dicted by  the  Alexandrians,  took  the  initiative  in  a  very 
grave  step  :  they  appealed  to  the  Pope  to  convoke  a  synod, 
and  to  give  judgment  on  the  matter  after  hearing  both 
sides.  Julius  would  have  hesitated  to  put  the  Eastern 
bishops  to  so  much  trouble ;  nevertheless,  as  the  council 
was  asked  for  in  their  name,  he  did  not  think  that  he 
ought  to  refuse  it,  and  letters  of  summons  were  sent  to  the 
Bishop  of  Alexandria  as  well  as  to  the  Bishop  of  Con- 
stantinople and  his  party. 

During  these  negotiations  at  Rome,  the  situation  in 
Egypt  was  going  from  bad  to  worse.  Eusebius 
and     his     followers,     assembled      in     Antioch     at     the 

1  Apol.  contra  Ar.  3-5,  18  ;  Hist.  Ar.  9  ;  Apol.  ad  Const.  4. 

2  Eusebius  died  on  May  30,  in  a  year  that  may  have  been  338, 
339,  or  340. 


p.  199]  GREGORY  THE  CAPPADOCIAN  159 

court  of  the  Emperor  Constantius,  had  recognized  the 
impossibility  of  supporting  Pistus,  and  resolved  to  send  as 
bishop  to  Alexandria  a  man  who,  while  agreeing  with  their 
opinions,  had  not  been  compromised  in  the  disputes  of  the 
previous  years.  Their  choice  fell  upon  a  certain  Eusebius, 
a  native  of  Edessa,  who,  after  having  studied  with  Eusebius 
of  Caesarea  and  sojourned  for  some  time  in  Alexandria, 
was  living  among  the  dependents  of  Flaccillus,  Bishop  of 
Antioch.  Eusebius  refused,  not  wishing  to  brave  the 
popularity  of  Athanasius.^  Failing  him,  they  agreed  upon 
a  native  of  Cappadocia,  called  Gregory,  who  was  at  once 
consecrated  and  then  despatched  to  Egypt. 

Nothing  could  possibly  have  been  more  irregular. 
Even  admitting  the  validity  of  the  sentence  of  the  Council 
of  Tyre,  and  regarding  Athanasius  as  no  longer  the 
lawful  bishop,  it  was  necessary  at  least  that  his  successor 
should  have  been  elected  by  the  clergy  and  the  faithful  of 
Alexandria,  and  should  then  have  been  installed  by  the 
bishops  within  his  jurisdiction  as  metropolitan.  But  they 
did  not  trouble  about  one  illegality  more  or  less. 
Philagrius,  under  the  patronage  of  the  aged  Eusebius, 
who  had  formed  a  high  opinion  of  his  zeal  at  the  time 
of  the  Council  of  Tyre,  was  once  more  prefect  of  Egypt. 
He  announced  by  edict,  about  the  middle  of  March,  339, 
that  Alexandria  had  a  new  bishop.  The  Christian 
population  flocked  to  the  churches,  raising  protests.  The 
churches  of  Alexandria,  in  spite  of  all  that  had  been  done 
against  the  bishop,  had  remained  in  his  power ;  during 
his  exile,  his  priests  continued  to  perform  their  functions 
there.  The  problem  now  was  to  take  these  from  them, 
in  order  to  hand  them  over  to  the  intruder. 

The  church  of  Quirinus^  was  the  first  to  be  attacked, 
on  March  18  ;  as  a  result,  some  were  killed,  others  wounded, 
and  lamentable  scenes  took  place  :  finally,  fire  seized  upon 

'  Socrates,  H.  E.  ii.  9,  following  George  of  Laodicea,  a  con- 
temporary and  friend  of  Eusebius  of  Emesa. 

"-  Hist.  Ar.  10.  The  Chronicle  of  the  Festal  Letters  gives  the 
church  of  Theonas,  which  was,  in  356,  the  theatre  of  similar  scenes. 
There  is  perhaps  some  confusion  here. 


160  THE  EMPEROR  CONSTANS  [ch.  vi. 

the  building  itself,  and  it  was  burnt  together  with  the 
neighbouring  baptistery.  Four  days  afterwards,  Gregory 
made  his  entrance  into  the  city,  guarded  by  an  escort,  and 
welcomed  with  cries  of  joy  by  pagans,  Jews,  and  Arians. 
The  bishop's  palace  was  opened  to  him,  but  not  without 
scenes  of  pillage.  It  was  during  the  season  of  Lent,  and 
Easter  was  drawing  near.  Gregory  went  from  church  to 
church,  under  police  protection,  and  caused  them,  one  by 
one,  to  be  handed  over  to  him.  In  one  of  them,  on  Good 
Friday,  he  caused  thirty-four  persons  to  be  arrested,  and 
they  were  flogged  and  cast  into  prison.  Even  on  Easter 
Day,  arrests  were  made.  Athanasius  still  held  out  in 
one  church.  He  knew  that  it  was  going  to  be  attacked, 
and  withdrew  from  it  of  his  own  accord,  to  avoid  further 
scandals.  Of  course,  the  official  reports  laid  to  his 
account  all  the  horrors  of  which  Alexandria  was  at  this 
time  the  theatre. 

We  can  imagine  his  intense  indignation.  But  there 
is  not  even  need  to  imagine  it,  for  we  possess  the 
indignant  protest  which  he  addressed  at  the  time  to  the 
whole  episcopate.  It  begins  with  a  reference  to  the  story 
of  the  Levite  of  Ephraim,  who  in  days  of  old  cut  into 
small  pieces  the  dead  body  of  his  outraged  wife,  and  made 
use  of  these  mournful  fragments  to  excite  the  indignation 
of  the  tribes  of  Israel.  His  own  Church  of  Alexandria, 
too,  had  been  violated  before  his  eyes  :  it  had  been  torn 
from  him  bit  by  bit.  Then  follows  the  deplorable  story 
of  Gregory's  intrusion.  And  finally,  addressing  himself 
to  his  colleagues,  Athanasius  appeals  to  them  with 
unstudied  eloquence : 

"  Behold  the  comedy  which  Eusebius  is  playing ! 
Behold  the  intrigue  which  he  has  been  so  long  fomenting, 
and  which  he  has  finally  brought  to  a  head,  thanks  to  the 
slanders  with  which  he  besets  the  emperor.  But  that  is 
not  enough  for  him  ;  he  would  have  my  head ;  he  seeks 
to  frighten  my  friends  by  threats  of  exile  and  of  death. 
But  that  is  no  reason  for  bowing  before  his  wickedness ; 
on  the  contrary,  I  must  defend  myself,  and  protest  against 
the  monstrous  injustice  of  which  I  am  the  victim.  ...  If, 


p.  201-2]  PROTEST  OF  ATHANASIUS  161 

as  you  sit  upon  your  thrones,  presiding  peacefully  over  the 
meetings  of  your  flocks, — if  all  in  a  moment  there  came  to 
you  a  successor  appointed  by  authority,  would  you 
endure  him  ?  Would  you  not  cry  aloud  for  vengeance  ? 
Well !  Now  is  the  time  for  vigorous  action ;  otherwise, 
if  you  keep  silence,  the  present  evil  will  spread  to  all  the 
Churches ;  our  episcopal  seats  will  be  the  object  of  the 
meanest  ambitions,  and  of  disgraceful  bargains.  .  .  .  Do 
not  suffer  such  things  to  be  done;  do  not  allow  the 
illustrious  Church  of  Alexandria  to  be  trampled  under 
foot  by  heretics." 

After  launching  this  manifesto,  Athanasius  embarked 
for  Rome.  To  do  so  was  not  a  very  easy  matter,  for 
the  port  was  well  watched  ;  but  he  was  popular  among 
the  sailors,  and  they  let  him  pass.  Almost  at  the  same 
time  as  himself,  Carpones,  one  of  the  Alexandrian  priests 
deprived  with  Arius,  also  landed  in  Italy,  bearing  a  letter 
from  Gregory.  Such  a  messenger  was  well  calculated  to 
confirm  what  was  already  known — that  Gregory  and  those 
who  had  sent  him  were  supporters  of  Arianism.  In  Rome, 
where  the  Council  of  Nicaea  was  alone  recognized,  that 
party  could  not  hope  for  success. 

Nevertheless,  the  Roman  legates,  Elpidius  and 
Philoxenus,  set  out  for  the  East.  They  were  detained 
there  for  a  long  time  on  various  pretexts :  so  much  so, 
that  they  were  not  able  to  start  on  their  return  journey 
until  January  340.  They  had  not  been  much  edified  by 
the  ecclesiastical  world  with  which  they  had  found 
themselves  in  contact.  The  invitation  which  they  bore 
was  refused  ;  and  they  were  given  a  very  haughty  letter, 
containing  a  protest  against  the  idea  of  revising  in  the 
West  the  decisions  of  Eastern  councils,  and  hinting  that 
the  Pope  must  choose  between  the  society  of  such  people 
as  Athanasius  and  Marcellus  and  communion  with  the 
prelates  of  the  East. 

This  document,^  which  is  no  longer  extant,  was  dated 
from  Antioch,  and  written  in  the  name  of  the  Bishops  of 

'  Besides  what  the  reply  of  Pope  Julius  tells  us  about  it,  Sozomen's 
analysis  (iii.  8)  should  be  consulted. 

II  L 


162  THE  EMPEROR  CONSTANS  [ch.  vi. 

Caesarea  in  Cappadocia  (Dianius),  of  Antioch  (Flaccillus)/ 
of  Constantinople  (Eusebius),  and  of  several  other 
sees.  The  Pope  was  highly  affronted  by  it ;  but  it  did  not 
prevent  him  from  holding  the  council.  The  assemblage, 
consisting  of  some  fifty  bishops,  was  held  in  the  church 
{tituhis)  of  the  priest  Vitus,  one  of  Silvester's  legates  at 
the  Council  of  Nicaea,  during  the  summer  or  autumn  of 
340.  Athanasius  had  no  difficulty  in  justifying  himself 
and  unmasking  the  intrigues  of  which  he  was  the  victim. 

His  was  not  the  only  case.  Every  bishop  throughout 
the  East  who  had  been  deposed  and  hounded  out  of  his 
see,  hastened  to  Rome  at  the  first  mention  of  the  council. 
From  Thrace,  from  Asia  Minor,  from  Syria,  from 
Phoenicia,  and  from  Palestine,  the  exiled  bishops  and 
priests  alike  poured  into  Rome.  Marcellus  of  Ancyra 
made  a  long  stay  there.  He  also  had  been  denounced  to 
the  Pope,  who  had  invited  his  accusers,  as  he  had 
invited  those  of  Athanasius,  to  appear  before  him.  In 
their  absence,  Marcellus  explained  his  belief,  and  his 
language  seemed  satisfactory ;  Vitus  and  Vincent,  the 
Roman  legates  to  the  Nicene  Council,  testified  to  the  zeal 
he  had  then  displayed  against  the  Arians.  In  short,  he  was 
restored  to  communion  and  to  his  episcopal  dignity. 

These  decisions  were  notified  to  the  Eastern  episcopate 
by  a  letter  which  Pope  Julius-  addressed  to  those  who 
had  signed  the  one  brought  by  the  legates  from  Antioch. 
The  Pope's  letter  is  one  of  the  most  remarkable  documents 
in  the  whole  affair.  Although  deeply  wounded  by  the 
bitterness  of  the  Orientals,  and  the  insolent  tone  they  had 
adopted  towards  him,  he  maintained  an  attitude  in  keep- 

'  Title  of  the  reply  :  'loi^Xtos  Aai'tV  '^^'  ^XaKiXXy,  Xap/fitrcry,  EiVe/Si^i 
Mdpt,  MaKf5ovt<f),  Qeodiipqi  Kai  toTs  crvv  avrois  airb  ' Avrioxfias  ypd\pacn.v  r/fi'iv. 
Flaccillus  and  Dianius  appear  to  have  been  rather  poor  creatures  ; 
Narcissus  of  Neronias  and  Macedonius  of  Mopsuestia,  Cilician 
Bishops,  as  well  as  Maris  of  Chalcedon  and  Theodore  of  Heraclea 
in  Thrace,  were  pillars  of  Eusebius'  party. 

^  Preserved  by  St  Athanasius  in  his  Apol.  contra  Ar.  20-25. 
Sabinus  the  Macedonian  had  inserted  in  his  collection  the  letter  of 
the  Eastern  prelates  to  Julius,  but  not  the  latter's  reply  (Socrates, 
ii.  17). 


p.  204]  LETTER  OF  POPE  JULIUS  163 

ing  with  his  position,  and  remained  calm,  pacific,  and 
impartial.  If  he  had  summoned  the  Easterns,  it  was  at 
the  request  of  their  own  envoys  ;  he  would  have  done  it, 
in  any  case,  on  his  own  motion,  for  it  was  natural  to  take 
cognizance  of  the  complaints  of  bishops  who  said  they  had 
been  unjustly  deposed.  A  revision  of  the  decisions  of 
councils  was  not  an  unheard-of  thing :  when  the  Eastern 
Churches  received  Arius  and  his  followers,  did  they  not 
act  in  this  way  towards  the  Council  of  Nicaea  ?  They 
contested  his  right,  by  alleging  that  the  authority  of 
bishops  is  not  measured  by  the  importance  of  their  cities. 
A  strange  argument  in  the  mouth  of  persons  who  are 
forever  transferring  themselves  from  one  capital  to  another. 
As  for  himself,  the  Pope  said,  stories  about  broken 
chalices  interested  him  much  less  than  the  unity  of  the 
Church.  He  cannot  fail  to  perceive  that,  beneath  their 
condemnation  of  the  misdeeds  of  Athanasius  and  the 
errors  of  Marcellus,  the  enemies  of  these  prelates  do  but 
ill  conceal  their  intention  of  declaring  the  Arians  innocent. 
Yet  his  desire  throughout  has  been  to  make  a  close  and 
thorough  examination  of  the  whole  question.  It  is  not 
his  fault  if  the  accusers,  after  having  besought  his  inter- 
vention, now  try  to  escape  from  the  enquiry,  nor  if  the 
prefect  of  Egypt  prevents  the  bishops  of  that  country 
from  embarking  for  Rome.  He  has  decided  the  case 
upon  the  information  at  his  command,  and  in  particular 
upon  the  documents  of  the  Council  of  Tyre,  furnished  by 
the  Easterns  themselves.  If  they  think  that  they  can 
prove  that  he  is  mistaken,  let  them  appear ;  the  accused 
are  always  ready  with  an  answer.  But  instead  of  present- 
ing themselves  at  the  requisition  of  the  Bishop  of  Rome, 
they  have  been  guilty  of  outrageous  proceedings,  such  as 
the  nomination  of  the  intruder  Gregory. 

If  they  had  been  willing  to  conform  to  ancient  usage,i 
and,  since  the  matter  concerned  bishops  of  importance 
— the  see  of  Alexandria,  to  address  themselves  at  the 
outset   to   the    Roman  Church,  with    a  request   that   she 

^  "II    dyvoeiTe  6ti   touto  ^dos  T/u,   irponpov  ypd4>e(Tdai  ij/j.tu  Kal  ourws  tvdtv 
opi^ecrOai.  to.  oiKaia  i^Apol,  contra  Ar,  35). 


164  THE  EMPEROR  CONST ANS  [ch.  vi. 

would  decide  what  was  right,  things  would  not  have  come  to 
this  pass.  They  must  get  out  of  these  scandalous  quarrels, 
in  which  the  bitter  grudges  of  self-love  give  themselves 
rein  at  the  expense  of  charity  and  of  brotherly  union.^ 

The  Pope  was  abundantly  justified.  Yet  this  letter 
marks  the  beginning  of  an  alliance  which  was  to  have 
very  troublesome  consequences,  that  of  the  Roman  Church 
and  of  St  Athanasius  with  Marcellus  of  Ancyra.  Marcellus 
may  have  had  the  best  intentions :  his  teaching,  as  we 
have  seen  before,  laid  itself  open  to  criticism,  even  in 
those  times  when  precision  in  theological  language  still 
left  much  to  be  desired.  Athanasius,  tossed  about  in 
so  many  storms,  has  never  been  accused  on  the  score 
of  his  belief,  even  by  his  bitterest  enemies.  It  was  other- 
wise with  Eustathius  and  with  Marcellus.  Eustathius 
soon  disappeared  ;  but  Marcellus  lived  almost  as  long  as 
Athanasius,  and  it  is  worthy  of  notice  that — not  to  mention 
the  Arianizers,  whose  special  aversion  he  was — he  was 
almost  everywhere  looked  upon  with  suspicion.  Two 
years  after  his  death,  St  Epiphanius  considered  him  a 
proper  subject  for  his  collection  of  heretics,  and  included 
him  in  it,  though,  it  is  true,  with  some  reserve.  He  had 
questioned  Athanasius  himself  upon  the  matter,  and  the 
old  warrior,  without  either  attacking  or  defending  his 
former  companion-in-arms,  replied  by  a  smile,-  which 
Epiphanius  interpreted  as  meaning  that  Marcellus  had 
gone  as  near  as  possible  to  the  danger-point,  and  had 
been  obliged  to  justify  himself 

He  was  already  in  this  position  at  the  time  of  which 
we  are  now  writing.  Pope  Julius  did  not  allow  him  to 
leave  Rome,  without  asking  him  for  a  written  profession 
of  faith.^     This   document,  skilfully  worded,  managed  to 

^  This  letter  was  carried  to  the  East  by  a  certain  Count  Gabianus 
{Ap.  c.  Ar.  20). 

^  Kpiph.  Haer.  Ixxii.  4  :  p.bvov  hih.  rov  ■wpoad-wov  fieidiaffas  vir€<prive 
/xoxdvp'-"'-^  M  fJ'dKpav  aiirbu  eiuai,  Kai  ws  dwo\oyrjcrdfj.€vov  elxf- 

3  The  text  is  preserved  by  Epiphanius,  /faer.  Ixxii.  2-3  It  should 
be  read  in  connection  with  the  letters  addressed  to  the  bishops, 
evidently  on  the  subject  of  Marcellus,  and  there  is  reason  to  believe 


p.  206-7]     MARCELIJJS  AND  ORTHODOXY  165 

conceal  the  characteristic  notes  of  the  doctrine  so  strongly 
attacked  in  the  previous  years  by  Eusebius  of  Caisarea. 
On  reading  it,  one  might  think  that  Marcellus  admitted 
the  eternity  of  the  Word,  not  only  as  Word  but  as  Son, 
and  that  he  accepted  the  formula,  "  His  kingdom  shall 
have  no  end,"  in  the  same  sense  as  the  Gospel.^  This 
little  artifice  might  succeed  with  the  Western  Church, 
little  versed  in  these  theological  subtleties ;  but  the 
Easterns,  better  informed,  could  not  be  so  easily  deceived. 
During  these  negotiations,  a  great  political  change  had 
taken  place  in  the  West.  The  Emperors  of  Gaul  and  of 
Illyricum,  Constantine  H.  and  Constans,  were  in  conflict 
with  each  other — Constantine  not  being  satisfied  with  his 
share  of  the  empire,  nor  with  the  way  in  which  his  young 
brother  accepted  his  guardianship.  They  met  in  battle 
near  Aquileia  :  Constantine  II.  was  defeated  and  killed. 
The  whole  of  the  West,  from  the  Ocean  to  Thrace,  recog- 
nized Constans  as  its  emperor  (April  340),  and  his  power, 
being  thus  doubled,  soon  forced  itself  on  the  attention  of 
his  Eastern  colleague,  Constantius. 

The  following  year  (341)  there  took  place  at  Antioch 
the  solemn  dedication  of  the  principal  church,  the  building 
of  which  had  been  begun  by  Constantine.  The  solemnity 
was  the  occasion  of  a  large  assemblage  of  bishops,  about 
a  hundred  in  number-;  the  Emperor  Constantius  was 
present.  In  spite  of  their  attitude  of  lofty  independence, 
Eusebius  and  his  party  were  exceedingly  annoyed  at  the 
whole  course  of  the  recent  proceedings  in  the  West.  They 
had  hoped  for,  and  even  solicited,  the  support  of  the 
Roman^  Church,  and  now  that  Church  was  upholding 
their  opponents.  Their  own  sovereign,  Constantius,  was 
favourable  to  their  opinions ;  but  Rome,  the  ally  of 
Athanasius,  was  under  the  protection  of  a  prince  of  far 
greater  power  than  their  own.  They  saw  themselves 
driven  to  act  on  the  defensive.  It  was  not  only  in  Rome 
that  it  was  actually  so  attached  to  the  letter  of  Pope  Julius,  of  which 
we  have  just  spoken. 
'  St  Luke  i.  33. 

-  Ninety,  according  to  St  Athanasius  ;    St  Hilary  and    Sozomen 
(Sabinus)  give  the  total  as  97. 


166  THE  EMPEROR  CONSTANS  [ch.  vi. 

and  at  the  Court  of  Constans  that  they  were  represented 
as  defenders  of  Arianism  and  the  Arians ;  this  accusation 
was  also  circulated  in  the  East,  even  outside  Egypt. 
Everything  that  was  happening  in  that  unfortunate  country 
was  known,  in  spite  of  police  precautions ;  how  the 
intruder  Gregory  was  everywhere  waging  war  with  those 
Christians  who  had  remained  faithful  to  Athanasius, 
assailing  the  churches,  and  even  going  so  far  as  to  include 
among  those  thrown  into  prison  confessors  of  the  time  of 
Maximin.  The  aged  Eusebius  felt  that  the  time  was 
come  to  defend  himself  From  the  Council  of  the  Dedica- 
tion {in  Encaeniis),  there  issued  various  letters,^  one  of 
which  contained  the  following  words  : — 

"  We  are  not  followers  {(xkoKovQoC)  of  Arius.  How 
could  we,  being  bishops,  follow  in  the  train  of  a  priest  ? 
We  have  no  other  faith  than  that  which  has  been  handed 
down  from  the  beginning.  But  having  had  occasion  to 
enquire  into  his  own  faith,  and  to  form  an  estimate  of  it, 
we  have  rather  admitted  it  than  followed  it.  You  will  see 
this  by  what  we  are  about  to  say."  Then  follows  a  sooth- 
ing and  conciliatory  profession  of  faith,'-  containing  neither 
the  technical  terms  of  Nicaea,  nor  the  final  anathema  ;  by 
way  of  compensation,  a  few  words  are  inserted  with  regard 
to  the  eternal  Reign  of  Christ,  evidently  directed  against 
Marcellus  of  Ancyra. 

Another  profession  of  faith,  emanating  from  the  same 
synod,  is  more  explicit  upon  the  Divine  prerogatives  of 
the  Son  of  God  ;  it  even  heaps  up  terms  calculated  to 
enforce  them  ^  and,  in  a  certain  fashion,  repudiates  the 

^  Athan.  De  syn,  22-25. 

"  Characteristic  passages  are  the  following  :  Koi  as  e^'a  vlbv  toO  Qeov 
fxouoyev^,  trpb  iravrwv  tuju  aiiloviov  virdpxovra  koX  crvvdvra  ti^  yeyevvijKOTi  av- 
rbv  Uarpi  .  .  .   5ia/j.hovTa  jiacnXea  Kal  Qebv  els  roi)S  alQvas. 

^  Ibv  yevfTjd^vra  Trpb  rQiv  alujvuiv  sk  tov  Uarpos,  Oebv  eK  0eov,  bXov  e|  6Xov, 
fj.6vov  e/c  fiovov,  rAetoi'  iK  nXelov,  ^acrtX^a  e'/c  /SacriX^ws,  Kvptov  airb  Kvpiov,  \6yov 
fwi'ra,  <To4>lav  fcDcrac,  <j)Cc%  dXridivbi',  bSbv,  dX-^deiav,  dvaffracnv,  irotfiiva,  dvpav, 
ArpeTTTdv  re  Kal  dvaXXoiccrov  '  ttj?  debrriTos,  ovdas  re  Kal  ^ovXtjs  Kai  bvvd/ueios 
Kal  56^7jy  rod  Harpbs  dirapdXXaKrop  elKova,  rbv  npuroroKov  irdaris  Kriaewi,  rbv 
6vTa  ev  dpxv  irpbs  rbv  Qebv,  Xbyov  Qebv.  .  .  .  Ei'  rty  Xiyei  rbv  "^Ibv  Kricr/j,a  cos 
iv  rQv  Kri(T/j.druv,  fj  yivv7)fxa  ws  'dv  rOiv  yevvTjfidrwv,  ^  Troirjixa  ws  'iv  rwv 
TcoiqfjLdrwv  ,    .    .  dvdde/na  iarij. 


V.  209]  CREEDS  OF  ANTIOCII  167 

expressions  which  were  forbidden  by  the  Council  of  Nicaea. 
We  find  in  it  that  the  Son  is  "  the  image  of  the  essence  " 
(ovcria)  of  the  Father,  not  that  He  is  "  of  the  essence  "  of 
the  P'ather.  The  three  names,  Father,  Son,  and  Holy 
Spirit  are  represented  not  as  terms  having  no  relation 
with  realities,  but  as  characterizing  the  hypostasis 
{inroaracrii'),  the  rank,  the  dignity  of  the  Persons  named  ; 
thus,  by  hypostasis  they  are  Three ;  by  their  mutual 
agreement  (a-vfxcpcouia)  they  make  but  One.^ 

A  third  formula,  presented  by  Theophronius,  the  Bishop 
of  Tyana,  was  approved  of.  In  its  positive  statements  it 
is  absolutely  colourless;  but  at  the  end  it  formally  re- 
pudiates Marcellus  of  Ancyra,  Sabellius,  Paul  of  Samosata, 
"and  all  those  who  are  in  communion  with  them." 

These  formulas  certainly  indicate  a  tendency  to 
modify  in  some  degree  the  position  of  the  party.  Arius 
was  dead  ;  and  they  were  beginning  to  find  him  rather 
embarrassing,  and  to  extricate  themselves  from  too  close 
an  identification  with  his  views.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  no 
one,  except  a  few  fanatical  disciples,  now  maintained  his 
system.  On  this  point  they  drew  back,  step  by  step,  and 
without  regret.  They  had  discovered  a  better  fighting- 
ground — the  struggle  against  Marcellus.  It  was  on  this 
that  the  conflict  was  renewed.  "  You  are  Arians,"  so  rose 
the  cry,  without  ceasing,  from  Rome  and  from  Alexandria. 
"  You  are  Sabellians,"  was  the  reply  from  Antioch,  And 
this  state  of  things  was  all  the  more  serious  because 
Marcellus  himself  was  not  dead ;  and  the  Westerns  kept 
him  in  their  ranks,  recognized  him  as  a  bishop,  and 
defended  him. 

Athanasius,  who  has  preserved  for  us  the  formulas  of 
Antioch,  gives  us  no  information  as  to  the  way  in  which 
they  were  presented  to  the  assembly,  and  approved  by  it. 
It  is  possible  that  different  bishops  or  different  groups 
may  have  availed  themselves  of  this  opportunity  to  obtain 

'  St  Hilary  (De  synodis,  29,  et  seq.)  gives  a  Latin  text  of  this 
formula,  and  explains  it  favourably  ;  as  does  also  Sozomen  (iii.  5), 
from  whom  we  learn  that  this  formula  was,  in  the  party,  attributed  to 
the  martyr  Lucian. 


168  THE  EMPEROR  CONSTANS  [ch.  vi. 

certificates  of  orthodoxy.  The  Council  of  Nicaea,  while 
decreeing  a  formula,  had  decided  nothing  as  to  the 
use  to  be  made  of  it,  nor  on  the  question  whether  it 
was  to  be  substituted  for  those  previously  in  use  in  the 
various  Churches  for  the  ceremonies  of  Christian  initiation. 
It  even  seems  as  if  the  council  had  no  idea  of  such 
a  substitution,  for  in  that  case,  it  would  have  completed 
the  conclusion  of  it  by  mentioning  therein  the  Catholic 
Church,  the  remission  of  sins,  and  the  resurrection  of  the 
flesh.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  Churches  kept  their  old 
creeds.  In  the  profession  of  faith  which  he  sent  to  Pope 
Julius,  Marcellus  of  Ancyra  inserted  word  for  word  the 
text  of  the  Roman  symbol.  In  other  places,  the  traditional 
text  was  modified,  either  according  to  the  formula  of 
Nicsea,  or  to  others.  Already,  even  in  the  time  of 
Constantine,  jealous  as  he  was  of  the  interests  of  his 
council,  Arius  had  been  able  to  submit  to  the  emperor 
a  profession  of  faith  which  did  not  reproduce  word  for 
word  the  symbol  of  Nicaea.  It  is  not  astonishing,  there- 
fore, that  other  formulas  should  have  been  presented  or 
published.  At  the  same  time,  it  was  a  dangerous  game  to 
play — a  fact  which  was  soon  perceived. 

The  Dedication  Council^  was  the  last  in  which 
^  It  is  customary  to  connect  with  the  Dedication  Council  the  25 
canons  of  a  Council  of  Antioch  which  is  mentioned  in  the  oldest 
collections  of  canons.  This  attribution  is  very  doubtful.  According 
to  the  covering  letter  sent  to  those  who  were  absent,  and  according  to 
the  signatures,  the  assembly  which  promulgated  these  canons  was 
composed  exclusively  of  bishops  within  the  jurisdiction  of  Antioch, 
Syria,  Mesopotamia,  and  Cilicia  ;  this  was  not  the  case  as  regards  the 
Dedication  Council,  which  certainly  included  other  bishops.  We 
know  it  was  held  after  the  Council  of  Nicaea,  because  it  mentions 
that  council,  and  before  the  year  359,  when  the  new  province  of 
Euphratesia  makes  its  first  appearance  in  the  documents.  If  the 
signatures  were,  in  regard  to  the  particulars  given,  better  supported  by 
evidence  than  they  are,  we  should  be  inclined  to  date  the  Council  of 
Antioch  very  shortly  after  the  Nicene  Council,  for  nearly  all  the 
signatures  are  common  to  the  two  councils.  The  enactments  furnish 
hardly  any  indications :  anti-Athanasian  and  anti-Eustathian  pre- 
possessions were  early  discovered  in  them  ;  but  there  is  not  much 
evidence  of  this.  I  should  be  inclined  to  think  that  the  council  was 
before,  rather  than  after,  the  year  341. 


p.  211-2]  EUSEBIUS  AND  HIS  POLICY  169 

Eusebius  took  part.  He  seems  to  have  died  about  the 
end  of  341,  being  still  in  outward  communion  with  the 
Church,  for  there  was,  as  yet,  no  open  schism  between  the 
East  and  Rome.  If  he  had  always  minded  his  own 
business,  and  not  had  the  fatal  idea  of  intervening  between 
Arius  and  his  bishop,  Arianism  would  have  remained  a 
purely  Alexandrian  controversy,  and  could  have  been 
suppressed  without  much  difficulty.  But  Eusebius  let 
loose  upon  the  Bishop  of  Alexandria,  first  the  Eastern 
episcopate,  and  then  the  emperor  and  the  empire.  The 
memory  of  this  intriguing  prelate,  in  whom  one  can  find 
no  single  sympathetic  feature,  remains  weighted  with  a 
heavy  responsibility. 

The  Church  of  Constantinople,  which  he  governed 
during  his  latter  years,  had  also  itself  passed  through 
strange  periods  of  crisis — thanks  to  him.  After  the  death 
of  Alexander  (336),  a  certain  Paul,  a  native  of  Thessalonica, 
had  been  elected  bishop  there.  He  had  been  present, 
according  to  report,  at  the  deposition  of  Athanasius,^ 
and  had  associated  himself  with  it  by  his  signature.  He 
was  himself  accused,  soon  afterwards,  by  one  of  his  priests, 
Macedonius,  deposed  by  the  same  council  as  Marcellus 
of  Ancyra,  and  exiled  to  Pontus.  His  place  had  not 
yet  been  filled  when  Constantino  died.  He  immediately 
returned  to  his  Church,  and  for  some  time  Macedonius 
maintained  friendly  relations  with  him.  But  the  see  of 
Constantinople  tempted  the  ambition  of  Eusebius. 
The  former  accusations  were  again  revived  at  the 
opportune  moment.  Paul  saw  himself  ousted  once  more, 
and  Eusebius  installed  in  his  place  (either  at  the  end  of 
338  or  the  beginning  of  339).  On  Eusebius'  death  (341), 
Paul,  who  had  fled  to  Treves  and  been  warmly  welcomed 

'  Paiihis  vero  Athanasii  expositioni  interfiiit  maniique  propria 
sententiam  scribens,  eum  ceteris  eum  etiam  ipse  damnavit  {Ep.  Or., 
Hil.  Frag.  hist.  iii.  13).  I  cannot  adopt  the  opinion  of  those  who,  from 
the  evidence  of  this  text,  reject  entirely  the  story  of  the  death 
of  Arius,  in  the  time  of  Bishop  Alexander,  as  it  is  related  by  St 
Athanasius.  It  is  possible  that  Paul  may  have  taken  part  in  the 
Council  of  Tyre  as  the  representative  of  his  bishop,  or  that  his 
signature  may  have  been  given  at  Constantinople  a  little  later. 


170  THE  EMPEROR  CONSTANS  [en.  vi. 

by    Bishop    Maximin,   obtained    through    his    mediation 
permission   to   return    to    his    episcopal    city.     Eusebius 
had  had  time  to  organize  a  party,  at  the  head  of  which 
Macedonius    now    found    himself.     The     populace    were 
divided  between  Paul  and  him,  and  disagreement  degener- 
ated   into   scenes  of  violence.     Things   went  so  far  that 
a   general,  the  magister  militujn,  Hermogenes,  was  killed 
in  a  riot  and  his  body  dragged  through  the  streets  (342). 
However,  the  coercive  power  was  still  in  the  hands  of  the 
authorities.     The  praetorian  prefect  Philip  succeeded,  after 
a  struggle,  in  which  more  than  three  thousand  persons  are 
said  to  have  perished,  in  installing  Macedonius.     As  for 
Paul,  he  was  arrested,  loaded  with  chains,  and  sent  to  Singar 
in  the  extremity  of  Mesopotamia  on  the  Persian  frontier. 
Thence  he  was    transferred    to    Emesa,   then   to  Cucusa, 
in  the  mountains  of  Cappadocia,  where  an  attempt  was 
made  to  starve  him  to  death ;  and  finally,  as  he  persisted 
in  living,  the  prefect  Philip  ordered  him  to  be  strangled.^ 

All  this  time  the  imperial  court  of  the  West  continued 
to  interest  itself  in  the  affairs  of  the  Eastern  Church,  and 
the  proteges  of  the  Apostolic  See.  In  consequence  of 
some  step  on  his  part,  it  was  decided  at  Antioch  that 
a  deputation  of  bishops  should  be  sent  to  the  young 
Emperor  Constans.  Four  distinguished  members  of  the 
Arianizing  party  were  chosen  for  this  purpose.  Narcissus 
of  Neronias,  Maris  of  Chalcedon,  Theodore  of  Heraclea, 
and  Mark  of  Arethusa :  the  first  two  had  taken  part  in 
the  Council  of  Nicaea.  They  were  the  bearers  of  a  creed,- 
differing  from  the  three  approved  by  the  Dedication 
Council,  and  conceived  almost  in  the  same  spirit.  This 
document  is  important,  for  the  Easterns  adhered  to  it  for 

^  The  story  of  Paul  is  very  difficult  to  unravel.  The  synodal 
letter  of  the  Easterns  (343)  is  the  most  ancient  document  on  the 
subject,  but  it  is  inspired  by  too  much  passion  to  be  taken  literally. 
Next  comes  St  Athanasius  {Hist.  Ar.  7  ;  cf.  Apol.  de  fuga  3),  then 
St  Jerome  {Chron.  ad  ann.  Abr.  2358).  Socrates  (ii.  6,  7,  12  et  seq.)^ 
and  Sozomen  (iii.  3,  4,  7-9)  give  us  the  local  tradition  of  Constantinople, 
but  with  much  confusion.  See  the  discussion  by  Dr  Loofs  in  Hauck's 
Encyclopiidte,  s.  v.  "  Macedonius." 

'  Athan.,  De  sy?!.  25. 


p.  214-5]  NEW  CREED  OF  ANTIOCH  171 

several  years,  and  often  presented  it,  especiall}'  to  the 
West,  as  the  expression  of  their  belief.  It  was  vague 
as  to  the  procession  of  the  Son,  but  precise  as  to  the 
eternity  of  His  Reign,  and  it  repudiated  several  of  the 
Arian  expressions.^ 

The  bishops  were  received  at  the  court  at  Treves,  but 
not  by  the  Church.  Bishop  Maximin  was  devoted  to 
Athanasius :  he  refused  to  see  his  enemies. 

It  was  no  doubt  as  a  sequel  to  this  embassy  that 
Constans,  on  the  advice  of  several  Western  bishops,  came 
to  an  understanding  with  his  brother  Constantius-  that 
a  new  council  should  be  convoked,  in  which  the  bishops 
of  both  empires  should  sit  together  and  arrange  their 
differences.  The  place  chosen  for  this  great  assembly 
was  the  town  of  Sardica,  the  modern  Sofia.^  It  was 
the  capital  of  inland  Dacia  {j)iediterraned)  and  the  last 
town  of  the  Western  empire  on  the  borders  of  Thrace, 
itself  included  in  the  jurisdiction  of  Constantius.'* 

Athanasius,  apprised  by  the  emperor,  came  to  meet 
him  at  Milan,  afterwards  in  Gaul,  where  he  had  a  meeting 
with  Hosius.  The  latter  was  then  far  advanced  in  years. 
But  no  one  had  more  information  than  he  had  upon  the 
controversies  of  the  East,  and  no  one  was  better  qualified 

^  T6v  7r/)6  wdvruv  tQv  alwvoov  ^k  toO  Harpbs  yevp-qO^ura  Bebv  iK  deov,  (pios 
iK  (pwrbs  .  .  .  \6yov  6vTa  Kal  ao(piav  Kai  Svvafuv  koI  fwTji'  /cat  <pQis  aX-qdivov  .  .  . 
oi  7]  ^acriKeia  aKardiKvTos  olicra  diafi^vei  els  toi'S  direipovs  aiQvas.  .  .  .  Tol'S  5^ 
XiyovTas  i^  ovk  tvTuv  rbv  Tlbv  ij  e^  er^pas  vwo(TTd(Tews  Kal  /J-ri  ck  tov  Qeov,  Kal 
Tjv  iroTe  -xfibvos  ore  ovk  ^v,  dWorpiovs  oldev  t]  KadoKiKr\  'EKKX-rjcria. 
"  Athan.,  Ap.  ad  Const.  4. 

"  In  Bulgarian  it  is  still  called  Sredec,  which  is  the  ancient  name. 
*  The  date  of  the  Council  of  Sardica,  formerly  fixed  as  347, 
following  a  false  clue  in  Socrates,  is  still  not  yet  quite  certain.  We 
may  hesitate  between  the  years  342  and  343.  The  first  is  indicated 
in  the  Alexandrian  section  of  Theodosius'  collection  :  Congregata  est 
sy?iodits  consttlatu  Constantini  et  Cotistantini  (read  Constantii  ct 
Constaniis)  aput  Sardicain  (Maassen,  Que  lien.,  vol.  i.,  p.  548).  The 
Chronicle  of  the  Festal  Letters  seems  to  indicate  the  year  343  {Placido 
et  Rontido  coss.)  ;  but  as  the  chronicler  often  reckons  in  Egyptian 
years,  beginning  with  Thoth  i  (August  29),  this  indication  may  well 
be  identified  with  the  preceding  one.  There  is  nothing  to  prevent 
the  council  having  taken  place  in  the  autumn  (September — October) 
of  the  year  342.     Cf.  E.  Schwartz,  Nachrichten,  1904,  p.  341. 


172  THE  EMPEROR  CONSTANS  [ch.  vi. 

to  negotiate  with  its  bishops.  He  was  deputed  to  conduct 
the  Western  bishops  to  Sardica  and  to  preside  over  the 
assembly,  just  as  he  had  directed,  more  or  less,  that  at 
Nicsea. 

About  eighty  bishops  gathered  round  Hosius,  in  the 
autumn  of  342  (or  343).  Half  of  them  came  from  Greek 
and  Latin  Illyricum  ;  the  others  from  the  West  properly 
so-called.  Pope  Julius  was  represented  by  two  priests, 
Archidamus  and  Philoxenus,  and  by  the  deacon  Leo. 
There  were  at  least  ten  bishops  from  Italy,  and  six  from 
Spain.  The  Easterns  arrived  in  about  equal  numbers. 
They  had  all  travelled  together,  under  the  escort  of  two 
high  officials,  the  Counts  Musunianus  and  Hesychius. 
The  new  Bishop  of  Antioch,  Stephen,  the  successor  of 
Flaccillus,  led  this  procession.  They  had  not  set  out  in 
very  good  spirits.  Of  course  it  was  necessary  to  obey  the 
Emperor  Constantius,  who  was  himself,  in  this  matter, 
yielding  to  the  representations  of  his  brother.  It  is  a  long 
journey  from  Antioch  to  Sardica.  In  the  evening,  at 
their  various  halting  places  in  Asia  Minor  and  Thrace, 
they  held  consultations  upon  the  attitude  to  be  adopted 
in  face  of  these  troublesome  Westerns.  A  large  number 
of  the  travellers  were  either  indifferent,  or  even  favourable 
to  Athanasius.  But,  as  always  happens,  the  main  body 
was  directed  by  a  few  leaders.  The  two  Eusebii  were 
gone,  but  there  remained  some  of  the  early  members  of 
the  Eusebian  party,  former  protectors  of  Arius,  and  some 
members  of  the  Council  of  Tyre.  They  persuaded  the 
others  to  take  no  part  in  the  synod,  either  as  parties  to 
the  disputes,  or  as  judges :  they  would  go  as  far  as 
Sardica,  since  the  emperor  wished  it,  but  they  would  act 
in  such  a  manner  as  to  get  out  of  it  as  soon  as  possible, 
and  to  avoid  contact  with  the  Westerns.^ 

This  programme  was  carried  out  to  the  letter.  On 
their  arrival  at  Sardica,  the  Eastern  bishops  were  confined 
to  their  own  rooms  by  their  leaders,  who  feared  defections.^ 

*  Apol.  contra  Ar.  48. 

^  Two  of  them,  however,  had  the  courage  to  join  Hosius  :  Asterius 
of  Petra,  and  Arius,  another  Palestinian  Bishop. 


V.  217]  THE  EASTERNS  AT  SARDICA  173 

When  invited  to  join  themselves  to  their  Western  breth- 
ren, they  protested  that  they  would  do  nothing  of  the 
sort/  giving  as  an  excuse  that  Athanasius,  Marcellus, 
and  Asclepas,  all  three  deposed  by  Eastern  councils,  were 
treated  by  Hosius,  by  the  Bishop  of  Sardica,  Protogenes, 
and  by  the  rest,  as  lawful  bishops.  This  scruple  was  not 
without  some  apparent  foundation.  The  Council  of  Rome 
had,  it  was  true,  quashed  the  Eastern  decisions.  But  as  the 
Roman  Council  was  not  being  adhered  to,  and  an  attempt 
was  being  made  to  review  the  proceedings  which  that  council 
had  settled,  it  would  perhaps  have  been  more  prudent, 
considering  the  unfavourable  attitude  of  their  opponents, 
not  to  appear  to  prejudge  any  of  the  issues.  Hosius  tried 
to  arrange  matters  in  a  friendly  spirit.  In  order  to 
persuade  the  Easterns  to  allow  the  case  to  be  heard,  he 
promised  them  that,  even  if  the  innocence  of  Athanasius 
should  be  proved,  he  would  relieve  them  of  his  unwelcome 
figure  and  take  him  with  him  to  Spain.'-  The  Easterns 
would  listen  to  nothing  :  they  held  a  council  of  their  own  ; 
and  then  retired  to  Thrace,  to  Philippopolis,  and  from 
thence  returned  to  their  homes.  But  before  leaving 
Sardica,^  they  indited  an  encyclical  letter,  addressed  to 
the  whole  episcopate,  to  the  clergy  and  to  the  faithful, 
especially  to  Gregory  of  Alexandria,  Donatus  of  Carthage, 
Maximus  of  Salona,  and  several  Italian  bishops,  whom 
they  knew,  or  imagined,  to  be  favourable  to  their  views. 

The  letter  began  with  the  subject  of  Marcellus,  and  a 
condemnation  of  his  heretical  doctrines.  Then  they  gave 
the  history  of  Athanasius  from  their  own  point  of  view ; 
his  condemnation  at  Tyre,  and  the  scenes  of  violence  for 
which  his  own  return  and  that  of  others — Marcellus, 
Asclepas,  and  Lucius — had  everywhere  been  the  signal. 
They  protested  against  the  idea  that  such  persons  could 

^  According  to  Sozomen  (iii.  ii),  this  protest  had  been  preceded  by 
another,  sent  from  Philippopolis. 

■•^  Letter  of  Hosius,  in  Athanasius,  Nz's/.  Ar.  44. 

^  This  letter  purports  to  have  been  written  at  Sardica  :  Placidt 
nobis  de  Sardica  scriberc  (Hil.,  Frag.  hist.  iii.  23) ;  Socrates  (ii.  20) 
speaks  here  of  Philippopolis,  but  he  deserves  no  confidence.  What 
he  says  of  the  Council  of  Sardica  is  a  tissue  of  errors. 


174  THE  EMPEROR  CONSTANS  [ch.  vi. 

be  restored  to  the  episcopate,  at  a  distance  from  their  own 
sees,  by  people  unacquainted  with  the  facts,  and  also 
against  the  claim  of  the  Westerns  to  revise  decisions 
of  the  Eastern  bishops.  On  their  arrival  at  Sardica,  the 
Easterns  had  been  met  with  the  surprising  sight  of  persons 
whom  they  had  condemned,  sitting  in  the  midst  of  their 
Western  brethren,  as  if  nothing  had  happened,  and  as 
if  they  and  some  of  their  present  protectors  had  not 
in  former  years  been  alike  condemned.  They  had 
proposed  to  reopen  the  enquiry  as  to  the  affair  in 
Mareotis ;  no  notice  was  taken  of  this  proposal.^  From 
that  time,  they  had  separated  from  such  colleagues  as 
these  (among  whom,  besides,  there  were  several  persons 
of  doubtful  reputation),  and  threw  upon  them  the  whole 
responsibility  for  the  schism  to  which,  in  order  to  defend 
a  (ew  wretches,  they  were  about  to  expose  the  whole 
Church.  They  maintain  all  the  sentences  of  deposition 
which  they  have  themselves  pronounced  ;  and  in  addition 
they  declare  the  following  persons  to  be  deposed  and 
excommunicated — Julius  of  Rome,  Hosius  of  Cordova, 
Protogenes  of  Sardica,  Gaudentius  of  Naissus  (Nisch),  and 
Maximin  of  Treves.  Finally,  as  a  protestation  against 
the  heresy  of  Marcellus,  patronized  by  Hosius,  they  set 
forth  their  own  faith.  Here  we  find  the  creed  already 
sent  to  Constans  with  a  few  additional  anathemas.^ 

The  Westerns,  being  abandoned  in  this  fashion, 
resumed  their  examination  of  the  proceedings  against 
Athanasius,  Asclepas,  and  Marcellus.  So  far  as  Athanasius 
was  concerned,  they  did  not  consider  that  there  was  any 
occasion  for  a  new  enquiry.  That  of  Tyre  was  sufficient 
for  them  ;  it  had  evidently  turned  against  those  who  had 

1  They  were  well  aware  that,  with  Gregory  at  Alexandria  and  the 
prefect  of  Egypt  on  their  side,  the  enquiry  could  not  fail  to  turn  in 
their  favour. 

^  Similiter  et  illos  qui  dicunt  ires  esse  deos,  aut  Christum  non  esse 
Deum  aut  ante  ea  utium  (?)  non  fuisse  Christum  fieque  filiian  Dei,  aut 
ipsum  Patrem  et  Filium  et  Spiritum  sanctum,  aut  non  ftatum  Filium, 
aut  }ton  sententia  neque  voluntate  Deum  Patrem  genuisse  Filium  (Hil, 
Frag.  hist.  iii.  29).  This  text  has  been  altered — like  the  whole  docu- 
ment, for  the  matter  of  that. 


i>.  219-20]  COUNCIL  OF  SARDICA  175 

instituted  it,  and  had  proved  the  innocence  of  the  Bishop 
of  Alexandria.  Asclepas  produced  the  documents 
relating  to  his  own  trial,  drawn  up  at  Antioch  in  the 
presence  of  his  accusers  and  of  Eusebius  of  Caesarea :  the 
course  of  this  trial  showed  that  he  also  was  innocent. 
As  to  Marcellus,  his  notorious  book  was  read.  It  was 
recognized,  with  too  much  leniency,  that  the  objection- 
able passages  were  rather  tentative  propositions  than 
assertions  maintained,  and  that,  at  bottom,  his  faith  was 
sound.^ 

As  to  the  Easterns,  their  behaviour  was  severely 
judged.  In  the  opinion  of  the  council,  their  abrupt 
departure  showed  that  they  had  but  little  confidence  in 
their  previous  decisions,  and  feared  to  be  accused  in  their 
turn  ;  as  would  actually  have  happened,  since  many  plaints 
had  been  made  against  them.  Their  victims  had  presented 
themselves  in  large  numbers,  with  witnesses,  proofs,  and 
even  such  damning  exhibits  as  the  instruments  of  torture 
to  which  they  had  been  subjected.  All  these  alleged 
wrongs  were  examined,  and  the  council,  so  far  as  was  in 
its  power,  made  provision  for  the  reparation  necessary  in 
each  case.  It  also  pronounced — for  contumacy,  just  as  the 
Easterns  had  done — several  sentences  of  deposition  and 
excommunication.  These  sentences  were  directed  first 
against  the  three  successors  wrongfully  appointed  in  place 
of  the  reinstated  bishops,  Gregory  of  Alexandria,  Basil 

'  That  in  this  Marcellus  had  imposed  on  the  council  is  evident 
from  these  remarks  on  his  doctrine :  "  He  has  not  said,  as  his 
adversaries  allege,  that  the  Word  oi  God  derives  His  origin  from  the 
Virgin  Mary,  nor  that  His  kingdom  would  have  an  end  ;  he  wrote 
that  His  kingdom  is  without  end,  as  it  is  without  beginning." 
What  the  adversaries  of  Marcellus  really  charged  him  with, 
was  not  the  denial  of  the  Eternity  of  the  Word,  but  the  assertion 
that  His  existence  as  Son  began  with  the  Incarnation.  They  accused 
him,  not  of  setting  limits  to  the  Kingdom  of  the  Word,  as  Word,  but 
to  His  Kingdom  as  Christ,  as  the  Word  Incarnate.  On  these  two 
points,  he  was  certainly  wrong.  But  Marcellus  was  skilful  in 
manoeuvring.  He  had  signed  the  Creed  of  Nicasa,  in  which  the 
generation  of  the  Word,  before  the  Incarnation,  is  clearly  affirmed  ; 
he  placed  an  interpretation  then  on  the  term  yewrjO^vTa,  which,  in 
his  system,  could  only  be  applied  to  the  Incarnate  Word. 


176  THE  EMPEROR  CONSTANS  [ch.  vi. 

of  Ancyra,  Quintianus  of  Gaza ;  then  the  actual  leaders  of 
the  party,  Stephen,  Bishop  of  Antioch,  Acacius  of  Caesarea 
in  Palestine,  Menophantus  of  Ephesus,  Narcissus  of 
Neronias,  Theodore  of  Heraclea,  Ursacius  of  Singidunum, 
Valens  of  Mursa ;  the  last  three  had  taken  part  in  the 
famous  enquiry  in  Mareotis ;  Valens,  as  an  aggravation, 
had  just  distinguished  himself  by  fomenting  a  sedition  to 
secure  his  own  election  as  Bishop  of  Aquileia.  Scenes  of 
violence  had  taken  place  there  :  a  certain  Bishop  Viator 
had  been  so  seriously  injured  that  he  died  three  days  after- 
wards. To  this  list  of  persons  proscribed  the  council 
added  further  George,  Bishop  of  Laodicea  in  Syria,  who 
had  not,  however,  accompanied  the  other  Eastern  prelates  ; 
but  they  had  this  against  him,  that,  being  a  priest  at 
Alexandria,  he  had  been  deposed  by  Bishop  Alexander. 

Besides  these  questions  of  individuals,  the  council  also 
wished,  after  the  example  of  the  Council  of  Nicaea,  and  as 
the  Eastern  prelates  had  just  done,  to  draw  up  a  profession 
of  faith.  With  this  intention,  a  composition  of  consider- 
able length  was  prepared,  which,  for  the  most  part,  either 
justified  or  disguised  certain  ideas  for  which  Marcellus  had 
been  blamed,  and  which  affirmed  the  unity  of  hypostasis, 
this  word  being  taken,  be  it  understood,  in  the  sense  of  its 
Latin  equivalent  substantia}  Hosius  and  Protogenes,  who 
approved  of  this  rather  tenuous  creed,  had  even  prepared 
a  letter  to  Pope  Julius,  to  induce  him  to  give  it  his 
approval.  However,  the  proposal  miscarried.  The  council 
was  made  to  understand,  and  Athanasius  seems  to  have 
exerted  himself  strongly  to  this  end,  that  there  was  already 
quite  sufficient  difficulty  in  maintaining  the  Creed  of 
Nicaea,  without  complicating  it  with  appendices,  which 
would  only  increase  the  centres  of  opposition  to  it ;  and 
that   therefore  it  was   much  better  to  keep  to  the  text 

^  For  people  who  translated  oyciooi^cnos  by  consubstantialis,  the  terms 
ovaio.  and  inrbaTacTis  were  equivalent.  We  must  note  carefully  that  the 
word  essentia,  by  which  we  translate  oiVia,  was  not  at  that  time  in 
use  ;  that,  for  the  two  Greek  words,  ovala  and  inroaTaais,  there  was  but 
one  Latin  term,  substatttia.  We  can  therefore  understand  the  Council 
of  Sardica  being  tempted  to  pass  from  the  '  consubstantial '  to  the  unity 
of  hypostasis. 


p.  222]     PERSONA,  HYPOSTASIS,  ESSENCE        177 

unanimously  adopted  by  that  venerable  assembly,  and  not 
to  imitate  the  opposing  party,  who  every  year  brought  out 
a  new  creed. 

Athanasius  was  quite  right,  as  the  sequel  showed.  The 
Nicene  Council,  inspired  solely  by  the  desire  to  save  the 
absolute  Divinity  of  Christ,  had  accepted  the  Western 
homoousios,  which  really  safeguarded  the  point  assailed, 
but  gave  no  explanation  of  the  personality  of  the  pre- 
existing Christ.  Such  a  formula  was  incomplete  in  itself; 
it  was  necessary  to  supplement  it  by  that  of  the  Three 
Persons.  This  latter  dogma  the  Western  bishops  at 
Nicaea  may  have  held  in  the  spirit :  Tertullian  and 
Novatian  speak  unhesitatingly  of  the  tres  personae.  But 
it  had  not  been  introduced  into  the  Creed  of  Nicaea ;  and, 
besides,  the  word  persona,  irpocrunrov  in  Greek,  was  not 
sufficiently  explicit.  Persona  has  undoubtedly  the  sense 
of  rational  individuality,  but  it  equally  well  signifies  a 
character,  a  mask,  a  personage.  The  most  orthodox 
among  the  Easterns  clung  to  a  greater  precision  of 
language.  This  they  expressed  by  the  term  hypostasis, 
which  was  itself  inadequate,  for  its  proper  meaning  is 
substance,  and,  when  one  speaks  of  three  divine  hypostases, 
one  has  the  appearance  at  first  of  speaking  of  three  divine 
substances,  of  three  gods.  However,  without  really 
comprehending  what  they  were  trying  to  explain — and 
how  can  anyone  comprehend  such  relations  in  the  Infinite 
Being? — they  ended  by  acknowledging  the  one  essence 
and  the  three  hypostases  of  the  Easterns.  It  was  finally 
agreed  that  that  which,  in  the  Trinity,  was  common  to  the 
Father,  to  the  Son,  and  to  the  Holy  Spirit,  should  be 
called  "  essence  "  (oOcrm),  and  that  which  was  proper  to  each 
of  them  should  be  designated  by  the  terms  "  hypostasis  "  or 
"  Person."  But,  at  the  time  of  which  we  are  now  writing, 
that  solution  was  still  far  off.  It  would  certainly  have 
been  compromised,  if  the  Council  of  Sardica  had  prejudiced 
it  by  proscribing  the  three  hypostases.  It  was  a  wise 
inspiration  on  the  part  of  Athanasius  to  oppose  such  a 
declaration. 

Nevertheless,  the  idea  of  a  creed  was  not  lost  sight  of, 
II  M 


178  THE  EMPEROR  CONSTANS  [ch.  vi. 

any  more  than  the  text  of  the  letter  which  was  to  commend 
it  to  Pope  Julius^ :  and,  later  on,  certain  enthusiasts  found 
an  opportunity  for  taking  advantage  of  it.  But  the 
encyclical  addressed  by  the  council  to  "  all  the  bishops 
of  the  Catholic  Church,"  contained  nothing  of  the  kind.^ 
It  concluded  with  an  invitation  to  those  addressed  to 
confirm  by  their  signatures  the  definitions  of  the  assembly 
in  which  they  had  not  been  able  to  take  part.  The  edition 
of  this  encyclical  inserted  by  St  Athanasius  some  years 
later  in  his  Apology  against  the  Avians  actually  contains 
more  than  two  hundred  signatures  which  were  thus  added, 
besides  those  of  the  members  of  the  council. 

The  council  was  unwilling  to  separate  without  pass- 
ing some  disciplinary  canons.  For  the  most  part,  these 
regulations  were  inspired  by  existing  circumstances. 
Thus,  the  first  two  forbid  in  the  severest  terms  the  transla- 
tion of  bishops  from  one  see  to  another ;  we  can  perceive 
here  the  impression  left  by  the  affair  of  Valens.^  Others 
condemn  the  constant  journeys  of  bishops  to  the  imperial 
court/  or  deal  with  incidents  which  had  taken  place  at 
Thessalonica '"^ ;  others  concern  the  ordinations  of  bishops, 
law-suits  of  clergy,  and  the  sojourn  of  bishops  outside 
their  dioceses.^  The  most  famous  are  the  canons  relating 
to  the  condemnation  of  bishops.'^  Such  condemnations 
can  only  be  pronounced  by  the  council  of  the  province  to 

^  Both  these  are  preserved  in  the  Alexandrian  dossier^  which  the 
collection  of  the  deacon  Theodosius  has  preserved  to  us  in  Latin. 
The  Greek  text  of  the  creed  is  in  Theodoret,  H,  E.  ii.  6,  pp.  844-888  : 
' AiroKTjpvTTOfj.ev  di  iKelvovs  k.t.X. 

'^  HoXXa  fiiv  Kal  iroWdKis  (Athan.  ApoL  contra  Ar.  44  et  seq.).  The 
council  wrote  also  to  the  Church  of  Alexandria  {ibid.  37),  as  well  as 
to  the  bishops  of  Egypt  and  Libya  {ibid.  41),  and  finally  to  the 
Churches  of  Mareotis,  Etiani  ex  his  (Collection  of  the  deacon 
Theodosius,  Migne,  P.  L.  vol.  Ivi.,  p.  848).  Athanasius  himself 
wrote  to  the  priests  and  deacons  of  Alexandria,  as  well  as  to  the 
priests  and  deacons  of  Mareotis  {ibid.,  pp.  852  and  850). 

^  A  special  report  was  addressed  to  the  Emperor  Constans  upon 
this  affair. 

*  Can.  8-12  of  the  Latin  text ;  7,  8,  9,  20  of  the  Greek  text. 

^  Lat.  20,  21  ;  Gr.  16-19. 

6  Lat.  13-19  ;  Gr.  10-15.  '  Lat.  3,  4,  7  ;  Gr.  3,  4,  5. 


p.  224-5]  THE  CANON  OF  APPEALS  179 

which  the  accused  belongs.  And  if  he  is  not  satisfied 
with  the  decision  given,  his  fellow-bishops  of  the  province 
are  to  write  to  the  Bishop  of  Rome,  who  shall  decide  if 
there  is  any  occasion  for  revision,  and  if  so,  shall  appoint 
judges  of  appeal.  The  appeal  shall  temporarily  suspend 
proceedings,  and  the  appellant  bishop  shall  not  be  able  to 
be  replaced  before  the  final  decision  has  been  pronounced. 
The  judges  of  appeal  must  be  the  bishops  of  a  province 
near  to  that  of  the  first  judges.  The  Pope  shall  be  able, 
at  the  request  of  the  accused,  to  cause  himself  to  be 
represented  at  their  council  by  legates.  Here,  what  is 
evidently  in  mind  is  the  deposition  of  the  Bishop  of 
Alexandria  outside  his  own  province,  at  the  request  of  the 
Eastern  prelates  ;  the  decision  given  by  Pope  Julius,  and 
the  summoning  of  the  Council  of  Sardica. 

These  canons,  with  the  other  documents  relating  to 
the  council,  were  despatched  to  Pope  Julius,^  with  a  letter'^ 
signed  by  a  majority  of  the  members  of  the  assembly;  the 
legates  were  to  give  him  information  as  to  details. 

Regarded  as  a  whole,  the  Council  of  Sardica,  which 
was  summoned  with  such  excellent  intentions,  had  failed 
in  its  essential  task — the  pacification  of  the  Church.  This 
failure  was  primarily  due  to  the  unfriendly  attitude  of  the 
Eastern  prelates,  led  throughout  by  the  supporters  of 
Arianism,  and  throughout  implacable  in  their  animosity 
against  Athanasius.  We  must  also  admit  that  certain 
blunders  had  been  made  by  the  Western  prelates,  and 
especially  by  Hosius.  This  "  Father  of  Councils,"  as  he 
was  called,  who  had  had  a  seat  at  the  Council  of  Elvira  in 

'  Optimion  et  valde  congriientissimum  esse  videtiir^  says  the 
council  (letter  to  Julius),  si  ad  caput,  id  est  ad  Petri  apostoli  sedeifi,  de 
singulis  qiiibusque  prpvinciis  Domini  refcrant  sacerdotes. 

^  Letter  Quod  Seviper  {\\\\.  Frag.  hist.  ii.  9-15).  In  this  letter  we 
must  take  note  of  the  following  phrase,  which  gives  a  peculiar  signifi- 
cance to  certain,  pieces  of  information  : — ipsi  religiosissimi  imperatores 
Permiserunt  ut  de  i?itegro  universa  disciissa  disputarentur,  et  ante 
omnia  de  sancta  fide  et  de  integritate  veritatis.  Thus  the  two 
emperors  themselves  decided  the  programme  of  the  council.  Besides 
the  question  of  faith,  there  was  that  of  the  sentences  unjustly  passed 
and  that  of  the  acts  of  violence  attributed  to  the  Easterns. 


180  THE  EMPEROR  CONSTANS  [ch.  vi. 

the  days  before  the  persecution,  and  who,  under  Con- 
stantine,  had  taken  the  principal  part  in  the  Council  of 
Nicaea,  was,  nevertheless,  not  the  kind  of  man  needed  to 
preside  over  such  sessions.  He  was  a  true  Spaniard, 
dictatorial,  harsh,  and  inflexible.  At  Nicaea  he  had 
insisted  upon  the  hoinoonsios,  without  any  consideration 
for  the  feelings  of  dislike  which  such  a  formula,  presented 
without  any  saving  clause,  might  excite  in  the  East ; 
now  he  had  furnished  his  opponents  with  the  very  pre- 
text they  were  seeking  against  the  council,  by  allowing 
them  to  pose  as  defenders  of  correctness  of  procedure  and 
even  of  orthodoxy. 

The  whole  conduct  of  the  proceedings,  in  short,  repre- 
sented a  bad  enough  piece  of  business.  Pope  Julius 
ordered  the  canons  of  Sardica  to  be  inscribed  upon  his 
registers,  following  those  of  Nicaea.  And  there  they 
remained  dormant.^  After,  as  before,  this  legislation  with 
regard  to  appeals,  the  Apostolic  See  continued  to  receive 
them  ;  but  there  is  no  evidence  to  show  that  in  this  matter 
it  conformed  to  the  procedure  laid  down  at  Sardica. 
Instead  of  confining  himself  to  quashing  the  decisions 
and  appointing  new  judges,  the  Pope  continued  to  decide 
the  appeal  himself.  The  West  scarcely  troubled  itself 
about  the  new  canons  ;  the  East  only  recognized  them  two 
or  three  centuries  later,  and  even  then  rather  as  historical 
documents  than  as  a  code  to  which  it  owed  obedience. 

On  their  return  from  the  council,-  the  Eastern  bishops 
met  with  a  very  cold  reception  at  Adrianople,  where 
Bishop  Lucius  had  already  had  occasion  to  complain  of 
them.  They  were  treated  as  runaways,  and  the  Church 
refused  to  hold  communion  with  them.  They  took  their 
revenge  by  once  more  sending  the  bishop  into  exile,  with 
a  chain  around  his  neck,  and  manacles  upon  his  hands.^ 
Ten  workmen  belonging  to  the  armoury,  who  had  been 

'  Pope  Zosimus  revised  them  a  century  later  ;  and  then  they  were 
the  cause  of  a  celebrated  controversy. 

2  Athan.  Hist.  Ar.  18-20. 

^  He  died  shortly  afterwards,  at  the  place  to  which  he  had  been 
exiled. 


1'.  227]  RESULTS  OF  THE  COUNCIL  181 

wanting  in  respect  to  them,  were  put  to  death  on  the 
application  of  their  friend,  Philagrius,  now  raised  to  the 
dignity  of  Count.  Several  years  afterwards,  Athanasius, 
passing  through  Adrianople,  had  an  opportunity  of  seeing 
their  graves.  As  to  those  bishops  who  had  been  restored 
to  their  former  position  by  Hosius'  council,  they  were 
forbidden,  under  pain  of  death,  to  show  themselves  again 
in  their  episcopal  cities.  The  Bishops  Arius  and  Asterius, 
who  had  forsaken  their  colleagues  to  go  over  to  the  side 
of  the  Westerns,  were  arrested  and  banished  to  the  wilds 
of  Libya.  Some  priests  and  deacons  of  Alexandria  were 
deported  to  Armenia.  The  condition  of  affairs  throughout 
the  East  amounted  almost  to  a  reign  of  terror. 

Nevertheless,  Constans  did  not  abandon  those  whom  he 
had  promised  to  protect.  No  doubt  he  shared,  just  as  his 
brother  did,  the  opinions  of  his  own  bishops ;  moreover, 
he  would  not  be  sorry  to  have  a  cause  of  quarrel  with  his 
imperial  colleague :  the  exiles  furnished  him  with  this. 
Towards  Easter,  in  the  year  344,^  two  Western  bishops, 
Vincent  of  Capua,  the  former  legate  at  Nicaea,  and 
Euphratas  of  Cologne,  arrived  at  Antioch ;  they  were 
escorted  by  a  general,  the  inagister  iniHtiaii,  Salianus,  and 
were  the  bearers  of  letters  from  their  emperor.  Bishop 
Stephen  made  them  the  subject  of  a  plot  which  can  only 
be  characterized  as  abominable.-  The  house  where  they 
stayed  was  situated  in  a  lonely  spot.  The  bishop's 
servants  engaged  the  services  of  a  common  prostitute,  and, 
making  one  of  the  attendants  their  accomplice,  introduced 

1  This  date  follows  from  a  narrative  of  St  Athanasius  {Hist.  Ar.  21), 
who  places  the  death  of  Gregory  (June  25,  345)  about  ten  months 
after  certain  events  which  followed  closely  upon  the  affair  of 
Euphratas  and  the  deposition  of  Stephen.  This  passage,  in  any 
case,  prevents  us  from  going  back  as  far  as  the  year  343,  which 
would,  besides,  be  inadmissible,  if  the  Council  of  Sardica  had  really 
taken  place  in  that  year.  If  it  was  held  in  the  autumn  of  342,  as 
seems  probable,  we  must  admit  that  the  Western  authorities  waited 
some  months  to  make  sure  as  to  the  attitude  of  the  Eastern  emperor 
in  regard  to  the  restored  prelates. 

-  Athan.  Hist.  Ar.  20  ;  cf.  Theodoret,  ii.  7,  8.  Theodoret.  who 
came  from  Antioch,  has  preserved  some  details  as  to  the  locality  of 
the  affair. 


18:^  THE  EMPEROR  CONSTANS  [ch.  vi. 

her  by  night  into  the  chamber  where  the  Bishop  of 
Cologne  was  sleeping.  Euphratas  awoke,  and  at  once 
called  for  help.  The  woman,  who  had  expected  from  what 
they  told  her  to  find  a  young  man,  herself  took  fright  when 
she  saw  that  she  was  in  the  presence  of  an  old  man  whose 
appearance  showed  him  to  be  a  bishop.  She  too  began 
to  call  out.  At  that  moment,  some  persons,  who  were 
secreted  in  readiness,  burst  into  the  house.  The  bishops 
did  not  lose  their  heads  ;  their  cries  for  help  were  answered, 
the  outer  door  was  closed,  and  the  result  was  the  capture 
of  the  woman  and  also  of  several  of  the  organizers  of  the 
plot.  The  next  morning  the  general,  Salianus,  who  had 
lodgings  elsewhere,  appeared  on  the  scene,  and,  without 
waiting  to  listen  to  the  bishops  under  his  charge,  who  were 
already  beginning  to  show  themselves  mercifully  inclined, 
went  at  once  to  the  palace  to  make  a  complaint  and  to 
demand  a  formal  enquiry.  The  Emperor  Constantius, 
greatly  shocked,  granted  his  request  without  demur. 
Stephen's  complicity  in  the  affair  was  established  :  steps 
were  speedily  taken  to  gather  together  a  synod  of  neigh- 
bouring bishops,  and  he  was  deposed. 

His  place  was  filled  by  a  native  of  Phrygia,  Leontius, 
a  staunch  supporter  of  the  Arianizing  party.  Thus,  while 
the  direction  of  ecclesiastical  affairs  changed  hands, 
the  spirit  which  actuated  it  was  unchanged.  However, 
Constantius,  reflecting  upon  all  that  had  just  happened, 
and  listening  also  to  his  brother's  expostulations,  began 
to  relax  the  severities  into  which  he  had  been  led.  The 
clergy  of  Alexandria  were  recalled  from  their  exile  in 
Armenia,  and  the  Egyptian  officials  received  orders  to 
leave  the  partisans  of  Athanasius  in  peace.^ 

But  the  chief  matter  was  the  schism,  for  there  was 
really  a  schism  between  the  two  episcopates.  The  pass 
of  Tisucis,  between  Sardica  and  Philippopolis,  formed  a 
boundary  between  the  two  communions.  On  either  side 
of  the  frontier,  people  might  differ  in  their  opinions,  but 
they  remained  in  religious  communion  one  with  another ; 
but,  once  over  the  border,  it  was  not  so.^  Such  a  state 
1  Athan.  Hist.  At:  21.  ^  Socrates,  ii.  22. 


p.  229-30]  PHOTINUS  OF  SIRMIUM  183 

of    things    was    intolerable.      The    Eastern    prelates,    no 
doubt  as  a  reply  to  the  affair  of  Vincent  and  Euphratas, 
or    provoked    in    another   way    by    delegates   from    their 
Western  brethren,  decided  to  send  to  the  court  of  Milan 
four    bishops — Demophilus,  Eudoxius,^    Macedonius,  and 
Martyrius — with  instructions  to  explain  their  faith  to  the 
Emperor  Constans  and  his  bishops,  and  to  see  if  some  kind 
of  understanding  could  not  be  arrived  at.     They  carried 
with    them,    besides     the     creed    already    presented     in 
342    and    republished    at    Sardica,    a    long    explanation, 
in     ten    articles.-      This    contained     nothing     that     was 
unorthodox,  and,  if  it   had    not    been    for   its  silence  as 
to    the    hoinoousios,    it    might     have    given    satisfaction. 
Naturally,  it  expanded  at  length  the  points  compromised 
by  the  teaching  of  Marcellus  and  his  disciple  Photinus, 
or,  as  he  was  called,  by  a  play  upon  his  name,  Scotinus.^ 
This   is  the  first    time   that   we   hear  of  him.     Like   his 
master,  he  was  a  Galatian,  and,  under  Marcellus'  instruc- 
tions, had  performed  at  Ancyra  the  functions  of  a  deacon. 
He  was  now  at  the  head  of  the  bishopric  of  Sirmium, 
a  very  important  position.     The  members  of  his  diocese 
were    much    attached    to    him  ;     they     appreciated     his 
learning,  his  eloquence,  and  his  other  qualities.     Unfortun- 
ately, his    doctrine   left    much    to   be   desired.     We    may 
describe  it  with  sufficient  accuracy  by  saying  that  it  was 
almost  identical  with  that  of  Paul  of  Samosata.     Besides, 
the   principles  of   Marcellus,  with   his    impersonal    Word 
who  became  Son  and  a  distinct  hypostasis  solely  by  His 
Incarnation,  ended    logically  in  the  theology  of  the  two 
Theodoti,  a  theology  which  was  condemned  at  Rome  by 
Pope  Victor,  and  at  Antioch  in  the  time  of  Bishop  Paul. 
The   Easterns   had    abundant    reasons   for   rejecting   this 
theology,  and  even  for  charging  the  old  Bishop  of  Ancyra 

1  Eudoxius  and  Demophilus  succeeded  one  another,  later  on,  in 
the  see  of  Constantinople. 

2  Athan.  De  Syn.  26,  who  gives  the  date  of  it  as  three  years  after 
the  Council  of  341.  He  mentions  three  of  these  bishops,  Eudoxius, 
Macedonius,  and  Martyrius. 

^  4>a)r€»'6s  is  an  adjective  meaning  "light"  ;  2i/coT€if6s  means  "dark" 
or  "  obscure." 


184  THE  EMPEROR  CONSTANS  [ch.  vi. 

with  being  the  father  of  it.  The  plain  speaking  of  his 
disciple  put  Marcellus  in  a  difficult  position.  Athanasius, 
who  was  then  not  very  far  from  Sardica,  and  was  living 
in  retirement  at  Nisch,  began  to  see  more  clearly  into  the 
ideas  of  his  colleague,  and  to  recognize  that  they  hardly 
differed  from  those  of  Photinus. 

An  understanding  might  have  been  arrived  at  in 
Milan.  In  fact,  it  was  almost  attained.  The  Western 
bishops,  assembled  around  the  emperor  with  the  legates 
of  the  Roman  Church,^  made  up  their  minds  to  condemn 
Photinus.  But  in  return  they  demanded  of  the  Eastern 
delegates  the  condemnation  of  the  doctrines  of  Arius. 
This  was  refused,  and  the  Eastern  contingent  finally 
departed  in  anger.'^  Ursacius  and  Valens,  subjects  of 
the  Emperor  Constans,  had  no  qualms  about  it ;  they 
sacrificed  themselves,  and  repudiated  the  Arian  heresy. 

Notwithstanding  the  ill-humour  of  the  Eastern  envoys, 
the  Council  of  Milan  thought  it  a  duty  to  notify  to 
those  whom  they  represented  what  had  been  decided 
upon  with  regard  to  Photinus.  The  receipt  of  this  letter 
was  acknowledged ;  though,  at  the  same  time,  it  was 
carefully  pointed  out  that,  if  Photinus  was  so  deplorably 
heretical,  it  was  because  his  education  had  been  in  the 
hands  of  his   former   bishop,    Marcellus.^     To   revive   at 

^  Hil.  Frag.  hist.  ii.  20  ;  viii.  2. 

-  "  Quattuor  episcopi,  Demophilus,  Macedonius,  Eudoxius,  Mar- 
tyrius,  qui  ante  annos  octo,  cum  apud  Mediolanum  Arii  sententiam 
haereticam  noluissent  damnare,  de  concilio  animis  iratis  exierunt." 
Letter  of  Liberius  written  in  354  (Jaffe,  212  ;  Hil.  Frag.  hist.  v.  4). 
"[Photinus]  qui  ante  biennium  iam  in  Mediolanensi  synodo  erat 
haereticus  damnatus"  (Hil.  Frag.  hist.  ii.  19).  Observe  the  expression 
Arii  sententiam  haereticam.  It  was  scarcely  possible  to  ask  the 
Eastern  delegates  to  condemn  Arius  in  person,  since,  after  he  had 
given  a  satisfactory  explanation  to  them,  they  had  readmitted  him 
to  ecclesiastical  communion. 

^  Hil.  Frag.  hist.  ii.  22.  St  Hilary  weakens  his  position  here  to 
show  that  Marcellus  had  not  been  formally  condemned  by  any  council 
since  that  of  Constantinople.  Unfortunately  he  was  right.  The 
Latins  would  have  acted  wisely  in  following  the  example  of  Athanasius, 
and  refusing  to  recognize  a  compromising  person.  The  support  they 
gave  him  is  a  proof  of  their  lack  of  insight. 


p.  232]        RESTORATION  OF  ATHANASIUS  185 

such  a  time  the  deHcate  question  of  Marcellus,  was 
evidence  of  feelings  in  which  friendship  was  not  con- 
spicuous. But  opposing  parties  not  infrequently  have 
too  long  a  memory. 

Athanasius,  just  about  this  same  time,  went  some  way 
of  his  own  accord  to  meet  the  wishes  of  the  Eastern 
prelates.  He  notified  Marcellus  that  he  could  no  longer 
hold  relations  with  him ;  and  it  is  certainly  worthy  of 
remark  that  Marcellus  accepted  the  position  and 
abstained  from  any  rejoinder.  As  to  Photinus  himself, 
Athanasius,  whose  views  had  certainly  not  gone  uncon- 
sidered in  the  deliberations  at  Milan,  could  only  have  a 
highly  unfavourable  opinion.  However,  the  Bishop  of 
Sirmium,  protected  by  his  local  popularity,  troubled  himself 
very  little  at  the  censure  of  which  he  had  been  the  subject 
at  Milan,  and  stood  his  ground  in  the  face  of  and  in  spite 
of  everyone. 

But  at  the  end  of  two  years,  as  his  attitude  was  a  cause 
of  scandal,  and  as  it  was  important  from  the  point  of  view 
of  relations  with  the  East  that  the  main  body  should  not 
appear  to  be  compromised  by  his  heresy,  a  council  was 
called  together  at  Sirmium  itself,  with  a  view  to  getting 
rid  of  the  bishop.  But  they  tried  in  vain.  Photinus, 
like  Paul  of  Samosata,  was  a  difficult  person  to  dislodge. 
The  intervention  of  the  government  was  neither  given 
nor  even  asked  for ;  and  the  bishops,  reduced  to  spiritual 
weapons,  were  obliged  to  return  home  without  having 
met  with  any  success. 

However,  a  great  event  happened  :  Athanasius  was 
reinstated  at  Alexandria.  The  intruder  Gregory,  who 
had  long  been  ill,  finally  died  on  June  25,  345.^ 
Constantius    took    advantage    of    this    to    yield    to    his 

'  As  to  this  date  there  can  be  no  doubt.  The  Chroiiicle  of  the 
Festal  Letters  mentions  the  day  (2  epiphi  =  June  25).  It  is  true  that 
it  speaks  of  the  event  under  the  year  346,  but  in  relation  to  the  return 
of  Athanasius  to  Alexandria — which  actually  occurred  on  October  21, 
346  We  know,  from  tlie  Historia  ArianoruDi,  that  Athanasius,  who 
was  recalled  immediately  after  the  death  of  Gregory,  delayed  for  more 
than  a  year. 


186  THE  EMPEROR  CONSTANS  [cii.  vi. 

brother's  requests.  He  forbade  the  appointment  of  a 
successor  to  Gregory,  and  recalled  Athanasius.  It  was 
more  than  a  year  before  Athanasius  would  comply  with 
the  summons.  He  mistrusted  both  Constantius  and  his 
advisers.  Who  could  tell  whether,  if  the  wind  happened 
to  change,  the  memory  of  the  Council  of  Tyre  might  not 
be  called  up  ?  No  one  said  anything  of  formally  annulling 
the  decision.  But  Constantius  insisted ;  he  even  wrote 
three  times  to  the  bishop,  and  made  many  of  his  intimates 
write  also,  even  his  brother  Constans ;  he  swore  that 
everything  was  forgotten.  At  last  Athanasius  made  up 
his  mind.  From  Aquileia,  where  he  was  at  the  time,  he 
journeyed  to  Rome,  to  take  leave  of  Pope  Julius,  who 
gave  him  a  kind  letter  for  the  clergy  and  faithful  of 
Alexandria ;  he  also  went  to  see  the  Emperor  Constans, 
who  had  upheld  him  so  effectually,  and  at  last  he  set  out  on 
his  way  to  the  East.  His  friends  received  him  everywhere 
with  joy ;  some,  who  had  not  been  so  faithful  as  the 
others  in  upholding  him,  were  rather  embarrassed.  As 
to  his  enemies,  they  found  pretexts  for  not  appearing  at 
all.  At  Antioch  he  met  the  emperor,  and  requested  that 
advantage  might  be  taken  of  this  opportunity  to  bring 
him  face  to  face  with  his  accusers,  and  investigate  once 
for  all  their  complaints  against  him.^  His  request  was 
not  granted,  and  he  continued  his  journey.  The  farther 
he  travelled,  the  more  pronounced  was  the  sympathy 
shown  to  him.  In  Palestine — although  the  Metropolitan 
Acacius,  who  had  succeeded  Eusebius,  was  one  of  his 
most  inveterate  enemies  —  Maximus,  the  Bishop  of 
Jerusalem,  assembled  a  council  of  sixteen  bishops  to  do 
honour  to  the  exile.  They  gave  him  letters  to  the 
Egyptian  bishops  and  to  the  faithful  of  Alexandria. 
At  last  he  crossed  the  desert,  and  his  triumph  began  ; 
the  State  officials  themselves  travelled  as  much  as  a 
hundred  miles  to  meet  the  outlaw.  They  had  received 
strict  instructions :  the  emperor  had  given  orders  for  the 
destruction,  in  the  official  records,  of  everything  which 
might  have  been  inserted  against  Athanasius  and  his 
^  Letter  of  Hosius,  in  Athan.  Hist.  Ar.  44. 


p.  234-5]  URSACIUS  Ax\D  VALENS  187 

followers.  On  October  21,  346,  the  victorious  bishop 
found  himself  once  more  in  the  midst  of  his  Alexandrians.^ 

The  wind  had  decidedly  changed.  This  was  the 
subject  of  the  reflections  of  Bishops  Ursacius  and  Valens, 
on  the  banks  of  the  Danube.  They  had  already  made  a 
move  at  the  time  of  the  Council  of  Milan,  which  apparently 
had  referred  them  to  Pope  Julius.  The  Pope  had  demanded 
substantial  pledges,  and  there  is  no  doubt  that  the  two 
bishops  had  hesitated  some  time  before  giving  them. 
In  the  end  they  submitted,  and  addressed  the  Pope,  asking 
pardon  for  their  misdeeds  and  recognising  the  decisions 
of  the  Council  of  Sardica.  It  will  be  remembered  that 
they  had  there  been  deposed.  Wishing  for  peace,  Julius 
thought  it  best  to  give  them  back  the  government  of  their 
Churches  ;  but  he  summoned  them  first  to  his  presence, 
and  made  them  sign  a  document,  in  which  they  retracted 
everything  they  had  said  and  done  against  Athanasius, 
condemned  Arius  and  his  teaching,  and  promised  to 
have  nothing  more  to  do  with  these  affairs,  whether  at 
the  invitation  of  the  Easterns  or  of  Athanasius,  without 
the  consent  of  the  Pope.-  They  wrote  also  to  the 
Bishop  of  Alexandria,  in  order  to  put  themselves  again  in 
communion  with  him.^ 

Everything  seemed  to  have  been  satisfactorily  arranged. 
Nothing  remained  to  be  settled,  so  far  as  the  West  was 
concerned,  but  the  question  of  Photinus,  and  this  they 
might  hope  to  dispose  of,  some  time  or  another,  without 
recourse  to  strong  measures.  In  the  East  they  had  been 
too  badly  beaten  by  Athanasius  not  to  bear  him  a  grudge 
in  consequence.  But  this  also  might  come  to  an  end, 
provided  the  position  of  external  affairs  remained 
unchanged.     The     Emperor    Constans    now    turned    his 

'  Upon  this,  see  Apol.  cotiira  Ar.  51-57  ;  Hisf.  Ar.  21-23,  with  the 
official  documents  ;  cf.  Apol.  ad  Const.  4.  The  exact  date  is  given  by 
the  Alexandrian  chronicles.  , 

2  The  letter  was  written  by  Valens,  with  his  own  hand,  and  signed 
by  Ursacius. 

•"  The  original  letters  are  in  Hil.  Frag.  hist.  20  ;  cf.  Athan.,  Apol. 
contra  Ar.  58. 


188  THE  EMPEROR  CONSTANS  [ch.  vi. 

attention  towards  Africa,  where,  for  more  than  twenty-five 
years,  two  religious  parties  had  been  in  conflict,  and 
indeed  in  armed  conflict,  much  to  the  detriment  of  public 
order. 

We  have  already  seen  that  Constantine,  after  trying 
his  utmost  to  bring  back  the  Donatists  to  unity,  had 
ended  by  leaving  them  alone — a  concession  of  which  they 
had  not  failed  to  take  advantage  to  stir  up  disturbances 
on  all  sides,  and  to  ill-treat  their  opponents.  The  latter, 
left  to  their  own  resources,  did  the  best  they  could,  and 
tried  to  appeal  to  the  good  sense  of  the  public,  by 
enlightening  it  as  to  the  origins  of  the  dispute.  To  this 
end,  they  drew  up  a  sort  of  apologetic  dossier,  in  which 
there  figured,  side  by  side  with  the  records  of  the  enquiry 
on  Felix  of  Aptunga  and  the  trial  of  Silvanus,^  various 
documents  relating  to  the  decisions  of  Rome,  Aries,  and 
Milan.-  But  the  Donatists  were  hardly  in  a  mood  for  a 
discussion  of  the  issues.  Entrenched  behind  the  barriers 
of  their  sullen  obstinacy,  their  only  answer  to  arguments 
was  in  the  form  of  curses  or  blows.  Towards  the  end  of 
his  reign  the  emperor  seems  for  a  moment  to  have  lost 
patience.  The  praetorian  prefect  of  Italy,  Gregory  (336- 
337),  undertook  some  measures  of  repression,  Donatus 
protested  against  these  with  extreme  violence  :  "  Gregory, 
pollution  of  the  senate,  and  disgrace  of  the  prefecture ! " 
such  was  the  beginning  of  his  letter.  The  prefect 
replied  with  patience,  and  in  a  style,  says  St  Optatus, 
which  would  befit  a  bishop.^     For  all  that,  the  Donatists 

'  Supra,  pp.  90,  95. 

-  This  is  what  I  have  called  the  Sylloge  Optatiatia,  because  it 
figures  at  the  end  of  the  work  of  St  Optatus  upon  the  Donatist 
schism.  It  is  preserved,  in  a  very  incomplete  form,  in  a  Cormery 
MS.  {Parisimis,  \7i\).  But  as  it  was  certainly  seen  by  St  Optatus 
and  St  Augustine,  who  often  refer  to  it,  I  have  been  able  to  recon- 
struct it  completely.  On  this  subject,  see  my  Memoir,  Le  dossier  du 
Donatisme,  in  the  Melanges  of  the  French  School  at  Rome,  vol.  x. 
1890.  The  fragments  contained  in  the  Cormery  MS.  appear  at  the 
end  of  the  text  of  Optatus  in  the  Vienna  Corpus  scriptorum  ecclesiasti- 
coruni  latinorum,  vol.  xxvi. 

•*  Optatus,  iii.  3,  10. 


p.  237]  THE  CIRCTJMCELLIONS  189 

inscribed  his  name,  after  those  of  Leontius,  Ursacius,  and 
Zenophilus,  upon  the  list  of  their  persecutors,  and  only 
became  more  and  more  insolent. 

It  was  about  this  time  that  there  was  formed  under 
their  auspices  the  strange  body  called  Agonistics,  or 
Circumcellions,  This  name  was  given  to  bands  of 
fanatics,  who  travelled  all  over  the  country,  especially 
in  Numidia,  to  lend  a  hand  to  the  good  cause  and  wage 
war  against  the  traditorcs.  They  claimed  to  observe 
strict  chastity,  and  this  was  why  the  Donatists,  later  on, 
compared  them  to  the  Catholic  monks.  Armed  with 
stout  cudgels,  they  appeared  everywhere,  on  the  public 
roads  and  in  the  markets,  prowled  about  cottages,  whence 
came  their  name  of  Circumcellions,  and  kept  a  strict 
watch  over  farms  and  country  houses.  It  was  not  only 
in  the  quarrel  of  Donatus  and  Caecilian  that  they  interested 
themselves.  Sturdy  redressors  of  wrongs,  the  enemies  of 
all  social  inequalities,  they  eagerly  took  the  part  of  small 
holders  against  proprietors,  of  slaves  against  their  masters, 
and  of  debtors  against  their  creditors.  At  the  first  call  of 
the  oppressed,  or  those  who  pretended  to  be  so,  and 
especially  of  the  Donatist  clergy  when  they  found  them- 
selves hemmed  in  at  close  quarters  by  the  police,  the 
Circumcellions  appeared  on  the  scene  in  fierce  gangs, 
uttering  their  war-cry:  Deo  laudes I  and  brandishing 
their  famous  clubs.  One  of  their  chief  amusements,  when 
they  met  a  carriage  preceded  by  running  slaves,  was  to 
put  the  slaves  inside  the  carriage,  and  make  the  masters 
run  in  front.  Even  for  those  who  did  not  belong  to  any 
of  the  classes  regarded  with  dislike  by  these  extraordinary 
people,  it  was  not  at  all  pleasant  to  meet  the  Circum- 
cellions upon  lonely  roads.  The  sons  of  martyrs  often 
had  the  intention  of  being  martyrs  themselves ;  and  as,  to 
their  uneducated  minds,  the  meaning  of  martyrdom  was 
simply  and  solely  a  violent  death,  they  sought  for  it  with 
the  greatest  eagerness.  When  the  madness  seized  them, 
they  appealed  to  passers-by,  and  endeavoured  to  compel 
them  to  kill  them.  If  such  an  one  refused,  they  killed 
him,  and  then  hastened  on  to  find  someone  who  would  be 


190  THE  EMPEROR  CONSTANS  [ch.  vi. 

more  obliging.  If  necessary,  they  procured  martyrdom 
for  themselves,  burnt  themselves  alive,  threw  themselves 
into  rivers  or,  very  commonly,  from  precipices.  Once 
dead,  they  were  buried  by  their  companions  with  the 
greatest  respect;  the  plains  of  Numidia  were  studded 
with  their  tombs,  to  which  the  same  honours  were  paid 
as  to  those  of  the  real  martyrs. 

In  Aures,  where  they  were  very  numerous,  they  ended 
by  becoming  an  organized  body.  Their  principal  chiefs, 
Axido  and  Fasir,  were  powers  both  dreadful  and  dreaded. 
But  at  last  they  made  themselves  unbearable,  not  only 
to  their  victims,  but  to  the  Donatist  clergy  themselves, 
upon  whom  public  opinion  fastened  the  responsibility  for 
this  brigandage  under  the  guise  of  religion.  The  bishops 
adopted  an  attitude  of  disapproval  of  them,  and  then,  when 
they  gained  nothing  by  it,  made  up  their  minds  to  declare 
the  Circumcellions  incorrigible,  and  addressed  themselves 
to  the  military  authorities.  Count  Taurinus  sent  his 
troops  into  the  market-places,  and  made  some  arrests. 
In  one  quarter,  called  Octava,  the  soldiers  met  with 
determined  resistance,  as  a  result  of  which  there  were  a 
good  many  killed  and  wounded.  The  dead,  of  course, 
were  held  up  as  martyrs ;  but  this  time  the  Donatist 
bishops  refused  them  Christian  burial.^  This  local  and 
temporary  repression  only  served  to  strengthen  their 
fanaticism.  The  Circumcellions  began  again  to  swarm 
everywhere. 

At  length  the  Emperor  Constans  decided  to  undertake 
the  work  of  pacification,  which  had  baffled  previous 
attempts.  Two  commissioners,  Paul  and  Macarius,  were 
despatched  to  Africa,  well  furnished  with  money,  to  try 
first  if  imperial  subsidies,  freely  distributed  among  the 
common  people,  might  not  make  them  favourably  disposed. 
At  Carthage  the)'  presented  themselves  to  Donatus,  who 
received  them  majestically  :  "  What  can  the  emperor  have 
to  do  with   the  Church  ? "  -  he  said,  and    added   that   he 

1  Optatus,    iii.    4.     This     event     is    not     dated    with     sufficient 
definiteness  ;   it  seems  that  it  must  fall  between  340  and  345. 
^  Optatus,  iii.  3. 


r.  239-40]     CONSTANS  AND  THE  DONATISTS         191 

would  write  everywhere,  commanding  his  people  to  refuse 
the  proffered  alms. 

In  spite  of  the  opposition  of  the  "  Prince  of  Tyre,"  as 
Optatus  calls  him,  the  imperial  emissaries  began  their 
circuit,  which  passed  off  quietly  in  Proconsular  Africa, 
and  was  even  in  many  places  crowned  with  success.  The 
alms  were  distributed,  the  people  were  exhorted  in  the 
name  of  the  emperor,  and  an  agreement  was  arrived  at, 
without  any  too  severe  measures  having  been  necessary. 
In  Numidia  the  case  was  different.  There,  the  Donatist 
bishops  organized  a  savage  resistance.^  They  rallied  in 
great  numbers  around  the  Bishop  of  Bagai,  one  of  the 
most  determined  amongst  them ;  his  name  also  was 
Donatus,  like  the  great  primate  of  Carthage.  An  appeal 
was  made  to  the  "  chiefs  of  the  Saints " :  and  from  all 
the  region  of  Aures  the  Circumcellions  flocked  to  Bagai', 
where  the  church  was  transformed  into  a  store-house  for 
provisions.  Ten  bishops  were  appointed  to  meet  the  two 
commissioners,  who  arrived  by  way  of  Theveste,  with 
instructions  to  protest  energetically  against  "  the  sacri- 
legious union."  The  meeting  took  place  at  Vegesela. 
The  Donatist  prelates  spoke  in  such  a  manner  to  the 
emperor's  representatives  that  the  latter  considered  them- 
selves obliged  to  chastise  them  without  more  ado.  After 
being  tied  up  to  pillars  and  flogged,  they  moderated  their 
tone.  One  of  them,  however,  a  certain  Marculus,  remained 
obstinate,  and  was  kept  a  prisoner. 

Being  informed  of  the  state  of  things  at  Bagai,  the 
commissioners  did  not  think  it  prudent  to  venture  there 
without  an  escort.  The  Count  of  Africa,  Silvester,  put  his 
troopers  at  their  service.  Some  of  these,  being  sent  on  in 
advance  to  Bagai,  were  received  with  showers  of  stones, 
and  compelled  to  fall  back  on  the  main  body,  carrying 
with  them  a  number  of  wounded.  It  is  quite  certain 
that  matters  did  not  end  there.  We  have  no  exact 
details,  but  the  measures  of  repression  were  prompt  and 
severe. 

^  In  what  follows,  I  have  combined  with  the  information  given  in 
Book  III.  of  Optatus  some  details  from  the  Passioti  of  Marculus. 


192  THE  EMPEROR  CONST ANS  [cii.  vi. 

Donatus  of  Bagai  lost  his  life  as  a  result ;  Marculus/ 
after  being  taken  for  some  time  from  one  town  to  another, 
was  finally  thrown  from  the  top  of  the  rock  at  Nova  Petra. 
The  Donatists,  as  we  may  well  imagine,  honoured  them 
as  martyrs  :  their  opponents  alleged,  on  the  contrary,  that 
Marculus  had  cast  himself  down  when  there  was  no  one 
with  him,  and  that  Donatus  also  had  thrown  himself  into 
a  well.^ 

Henceforth  the  operations  of  Macarius  and  Paul 
assumed  a  severer  aspect.  The  imperial  envoys  travelled 
from  town  to  town,  accompanied  by  the  Count  of  Africa's 
troopers.  The  Donatist  clergy  fled  at  their  approach  ;  as 
to  the  faithful,  they  were  persuaded  to  assemble  in  the 
church,  which  they  entered  not  without  fear,  for  they  had 
been  led  to  believe  that  Paul  and  Macarius  were  placing 
images  on  the  altar — the  reference  no  doubt  was  to 
portraits  of  the  emperors — and  that  the  Christian 
Sacrifice  was  about  to  be  offered  to  these  new  idols.^  Of 
course,  nothing  of  the  kind  happened.  The  commissioners 
spoke,  and  explained  in  appropriate  terms  the  object  of 
their    mission.       In    certain     places,    their    success    was 

1  "  Ecce  Marculus  de  petra  praecipitatus  est  ;  ecce  Donatus 
Bagaiensis  in  puteum  missus  est.  Quando  potestates  Romanae 
talia  supplicia  decreverunt,  ut  praecipitentur  homines?" — Aug.  In 
Joh.  xi.  15. 

-  Passion  of  Marcuhis  (Migne,  P.  L.  vol.  viii.,  p.  760).  This 
document  itself  betrays  some  perplexity  :  the  Donatist  author  who 
compiled  it  does  not  disguise  that  the  execution  had  no  other  witness 
but  the  executioner.  Another  document  dealing  with  martyrdoms, 
the  work  of  Macrobius,  Donatist  Bishop  of  Rome,  relates  the  death 
of  two  Carthaginian  Donatists,  Isaac  and  Maximian.  The  latter 
had  torn  up  a  proconsular  edict  relating  to  union  ;  the  other  had 
uttered  seditious  cries  before  the  judge.  They  were  condemned  to 
exile,  and  then  died  in  prison.  Their  bodies  were  cast  into  the 
sea,  but  this  was  so  unskilfully  done  that  they  were  thrown  back  on 
the  shore.  The  Donatists  said  that  Maximian  was  still  living  when 
cast  into  the  water.  This  happened,  it  seems,  in  August  347  (xviii. 
kal.  sept,  die  sabbato\  when  the  union,  already  an  accomplished  fact 
in  Carthage,  was  no  longer  meeting  with  any  difficulties  except  in 
Numidia  {P.  L.  vol.  viii.,  p.  767).  It  is  possible  that  Macrobius 
may  also  be  the  author  of  the  Passion  of  Marculus. 

^  Optatus,  iii.  12,;  vii.  6. 


p.  24-2]         "  SUPPRESSION  "  OF  UONATISM  193 

complete,  and  effected  a  union  which  even  included  the 
Donatist  bishop,  with  whom  his  Catholic  colleague  found 
means  of  coming  to  an  arrangement,  either  by  a  division 
of  the  parishes  or  in  some  other  way.^ 

But  such  cases  seem  to  have  been  rare.  There  was 
much  local  resistance,  which  was  repressed  with  severity.- 
The  name  of  Macarius  remained  an  object  of  hatred 
among  the  Donatists,  and  even  the  Catholics  found  the 
recollection  of  his  military  reprisals  becoming  after  a  time 
inconvenient. 

Of  those  members  of  the  clergy  who  had  sought  refuge 
in  flight,  many  died  of  fatigue  and  want :  others  hid  them- 
selves, or  even  succeeded  in  holding  their  ground,  here  and 
there,  under  the  protection  of  the  Agonistics.  Those  who 
were  captured — the  bishops  at  least — were  banished  from 
Africa.  Donatus  was  among  the  number  ;  and  he  died  in 
exile.  Persecution,  as  it  always  does,  only  fanned  to  fever- 
heat  the  anger  of  the  opponents.  One  of  these,  a  certain 
Vitellius,  published  an  eloquent  book  with  the  title :  TJie 
Servants  of  God  are  hated  of  the  World.  This  book  is 
unfortunately  lost ;  but  we  still  possess  two  Passions  of 
Donatist  "  martyrs,"  from  which  we  can  form  an  idea  of 
the  state  of  mind  of  the  persecuted  sect.^ 

When,  their  task  accomplished,  the  operarii  ujiitatis  re- 
embarked  for  Italy, the  Donatist  Church  had  been  abolished, 
outwardly  and  officially.  There  remained  but  one  body 
of  clergy  and  one  Bishop  of  Carthage.  Gratus,  who  was 
at  that  time  invested  with  this  lofty  dignity,  called 
together  a  great  council,  in  348,  at  which  there  were 
present  several  Donatist  prelates,  who  had  been  brought 
into  union  during  the  preceding  years.  It  is  a  curious 
proof  of  the  state  of  men's  minds  immediately  after  the 
re-union.  There  had  already  been  partial  councils  in  the 
provinces ;    but    for    this   one    the    letters   of    summons 

'  Council  of  Gratus,  c.  12. 

'^  Optatus  again  and  again  returns  to  this  :  aspera,  aspere  gesia. 

^  Gennadius,  De  viris,  4.  Vitellius  had  already  inveighed  against 
the  pagans  and  the  Catholics.  Upon  these  two  Passions,  see  p.  192, 
note  2. 

II  N 


194  THE  EMPEROR  CONSTANS  [ch.  vi. 

embraced  the  whole  of  Africa.^  The  president  began  by 
giving  thanks  to  God,  who  had  inspired  the  Emperor 
Constans  with  the  thought  of  this  work  of  union,  and 
with  the  choice  of  his  representatives,  Paul  and  Macarius. 
Then  the  council  adopted  several  regulations  to  meet 
questions  which  arose  from  the  situation ;  in  particular, 
the  repetition  of  baptism  was  forbidden  ^  and  the  practice 
of  honouring  as  martyrs  persons  who  had  been  assassinated, 
or  those  who  had  killed  themselves,  either  by  throwing 
themselves  over  precipices  or  in  other  ways.  Questions 
of  general  discipline  were  also  dealt  with.  In  conclusion, 
Gratus  revived  and  solemnly  renewed  the  condemna- 
tions directed  long  before  against  the  traditores  and 
rebaptizers.  The  censure  of  the  traditores  was  a  satis- 
faction granted  to  the  reconciled  Donatists ;  that  of 
the  rebaptizers  a  condemnation,  however  indirect,  of 
Donatism  itself.  Old  disputes  were  allowed  to  sleep  in 
peace.  Caecilian,  Felix,  and  Majorinus  had  long  been 
dead  :    no  further  mention  was  made  of  them. 

With  the  wise  spirit,  of  which  these  decisions  of  the 
council  bore  witness,  peace  would  in  the  end  have  been 
restored,  if  only,  side  by  side  with  a  close  supervision  of 
the  unquiet  element  still  remaining  in  the  country,  and 
the  prolongation  of  the  exile  of  its  leaders,  time  had  been 
allowed  to  extinguish  feelings  of  resentment,  and  to 
accustom  people  to  live  together  who  had  been  cursing 
each  other  for  nearly  forty  years.  But  unfortunately  for 
Africa — and  we  may  say  so  quite  apart  from  any  religious 

^  It  is  vexatious  that  we  have  not  a  complete  list  of  signatures 
in  connection  with  this  council :  it  would  have  been  of  quite  unusual 
interest. 

2  Canons  i,  2.  The  Donatists  maintained  the  old  Cyprianic 
principle,  that  there  is  no  baptism  outside  the  true  Church.  And  as 
they  did  not  accord  this  title  to  the  Catholic  Church,  they  were,  of 
course,  obliged,  when  a  Catholic  became  a  Donatist,  to  confer  upon 
him  the  only  baptism  valid  in  their  eyes,  namely,  their  own.  We  have 
already  seen  that  the  Catholic  Church  of  Africa  had  abandoned,  at 
the  Council  of  Aries  in  314,  the  custom  formerly  upheld  by  St 
Cyprian.  In  these  circumstances,  it  could  not  but  recognize  Donatist 
baptism. 


p.  244]  JULIAN  AND  DONATISM  195 

prejudice  in  the  matter — the  attitude  of  the  government 
was  not  maintained  long  enough.  The  fire  was  still 
smouldering  under  the  ashes,  when  Julian,  to  do  an  ill 
turn  to  the  Church,  released  the  exiles  and  once  more  let 
loose  the  storm  upon  the  African  provinces. 


CHAPTER   VII 

THE   PROSCRIPTION    OF   ATHANASIUS 

Assassination  of  Constans.  The  usurper  Magnentius.  Constantius 
makes  himself  master  of  the  West.  The  two  Cassars,  Gallus 
and  Julian.  Deposition  of  Photinus.  New  intrigues  against 
Athanasius.  The  Council  of  Aries.  Pope  Liberius.  Councils 
of  Milan  and  of  Beziers.  Exile  of  Lucifer,  Eusebius,  Hilary, 
Liberius,  and  Hosius.  Police  riots  at  Alexandria.  Assault  on 
the  Church  of  Theonas  :  disappearance  of  Athanasius.  Intrusion 
of  George.     Athanasius  in  retirement. 

The  religious  policy  of  Constans  had  in  some  measure 
succeeded.  '  Order  was  supreme '  in  Africa.  It  is  true 
that  on  the  Danube  frontier  the  heretical  bishop  of 
Sirmium  still  held  his  ground ;  but,  as  the  members  of 
his  diocese  put  up  with  him,  the  interruption  of  relations 
between  him  and  his  colleagues  was  only  of  local  interest. 
In  the  East,  the  restoration  of  Athanasius  had  been 
secured,  and  this  meant  the  pacification  of  Egypt.  The 
Egyptians,  it  is  true,  remained  more  or  less  isolated  in  the 
episcopal  world  of  the  East,  and  the  Eastern  bishops  were 
not  in  agreement  with  the  Western  Church.  But  some 
steps  had  been  taken  towards  union ;  the  bishops  of 
Palestine  and  of  the  island  of  Cyprus  had  resumed 
communion  with  Athanasius ;  and  there  was  reason  to 
hope  that,  in  process  of  time,  these  tendencies  towards 
peace  would  increase,  and  East  and  West  arrive  at  last  at 
mutual  understanding.  But  to  ensure  this  it  would  have 
been  necessary  that  the  political  equilibrium  should 
remain  such  as  circumstances  had  made  it. 

Unfortunately  this  was  exactly  what  did  not  happen. 


p.  246]         USURPATION  OF  MAGNENTIUS  197 

On  January  i8,  350,  a  military  conspiracy  broke  out 
at  Autun,  and  the  Count  Magnentius  was  proclaimed 
emperor  in  place  of  Constans,  who  was  assassinated  a  few 
days  afterwards  at  Elna,  at  the  foot  of  the  Pyrenees. 

Against  this  attack  upon  the  due  succession  in  the 
line  of  Constantino,  all  the  remaining  members  of  his 
family  instinctively  set  themselves  in  opposition.  In  the 
West,  two  daughters  of  Constantino  were  still  living, 
Constantina  and  Eutropia,  both  of  them  widows,  one  of 
King  Hannibalian,  the  other  of  the  consular,  Nepotianus. 
Constantina,  who  was  residing  at  Sirmium,  lost  no  time 
in  setting  up  a  rival  to  Magnentius,  and  proclaimed  as 
Augustus  an  old  general  named  Vetranio  (March  i). 
Eutropia,  who  lived  in  Rome,  was  at  first  out-flanked  by 
the  rapid  movement  of  Magnentius,  who  secured  his  own 
recognition  in  the  ancient  capital ;  but  she  quickly  rallied, 
and  advanced  her  own  son  Nepotianus  to  the  imperial 
dignity  on  June  3.  So  far  as  he  was  concerned, 
however,  Magnentius  had  little  difficulty  in  getting  the 
upper  hand.  Before  a  month  had  elapsed,  his  general, 
Marcellinus,  recaptured  Rome  after  a  fierce  conflict,  in 
which  Nepotianus  was  killed.  The  conqueror  did  not 
show  himself  disposed  to  mercy ;  Eutropia  was  put  to 
death,  and  with  her  a  large  number  of  prominent  members 
of  the  Roman  aristocracy. 

Constantius  also  did  not  lose  hope.  He  had  upon  his 
hands,  besides  the  catastrophes  in  the  West,  a  never- 
ending  war  with  the  Persians.  The  city  of  Nisibis 
endured  during  this  year  a  heroic  siege,  and  its  inhabitants, 
encouraged  by  their  famous  Bishop  James,  resisted  for  a 
space  of  four  months  all  the  attacks  of  King  Sapor.  In 
this  quarter,  the  military  operations  were  under  the 
direction  of  the  emperor's  lieutenants.  Constantius 
himself  lost  no  time  in  gathering  his  forces  and  setting 
out  on  his  march  to  the  West.  He  had  already  come 
to  some  sort  of  understanding  with  Vetranio,  who  allowed 
him  to  pass  through  Illyricum.  Vetranio  did  more  than 
this :  the  son  of  Constantine  managed  to  persuade  him 
to  resign    the  purple,  succeeded    him    himself  without   a 


198  PROSCRIPTION  OF  ATHANASIUS      [ch.  vii. 

struggle,  and  sent  him  to  end  his  days  in  peace  at  Prusias 
in  Bithynia. 

By  this  arrangement,  Constantius  gained  the  Balkan 
Peninsula  and  the  Pannonian  provinces,  supposing  always 
that  Magnentius  did  not  come  to  dispute  them  with  him, 
a  contingency  which  there  was  much  reason  to  fear.  In 
the  meantime,  Constantius  took  up  his  winter  quarters  at 
Sirmium.  In  the  spring,  he  marched  towards  the  Julian 
Alps;  the  "tyrant"  came  to  meet  him,  and  obliged  him 
to  fall  back  as  far  as  the  confluence  of  the  Drave  and  the 
Danube.  There,  on  September  28,  351,  the  battle  of 
Mursa  was  fought,  the  result  of  which  was  unfavourable 
to  Magnentius,  and  compelled  him  to  recross  the 
mountains. 

When  winter  set  in,  the  two  rivals  remained  in  their 
positions  of  the  preceding  year,  Constantius  at  Sirmium, 
Magnentius  at  Aquileia.  It  was  not  till  the  following 
summer  (352)  that  Constantius  succeeded  in  crossing  the 
passes  and  making  his  way  into  Italy :  Magnentius  was 
obliged  to  fall  back  upon  Gaul.  The  victor  entered  Milan, 
where  he  married  Eusebia,  a  beautiful  and  capable  woman, 
who  soon  gained  an  immense  influence  over  her  husband. 
In  353,  Magnentius,  who  had  tried  in  vain  to  defend 
the  Alps,  beat  a  retreat  upon  Lyons.  Seeing  that  he  was 
on  the  point  of  being  betrayed  by  the  remnant  of  his 
forces,  he  killed  himself  on  August  10.  Constantius 
entered  Lyons,  and  the  unity  of  the  empire  was  once 
more  re-established. 

None  the  less,  like  his  predecessors,  Constantius  felt 
the  need  of  sharing  its  burden.  He  could  not  at  the 
same  time  conquer  the  West  and  carry  on  a  struggle  with 
the  Persians,  Already,  in  351  (March  15),  Gallus,  one  of 
the  sons  of  Julius  Constantius,  had  been  brought  out  of 
his  retirement  and  despatched  to  Antioch  with  the  rank 
of  Caesar ;  a  wife  was  found  for  him  in  the  person  of 
the  emperor's  own  sister,  Constantina,  the  widow  of 
Hannibalian,  the  princess  who  a  year  earlier  had  made 
an  emperor  out  of  Vetranio.  This  enterprising  person 
helped  her  husband  to  transform  himself  into  an  Asiatic 


p.  248]  DEATH  OF  GALLUS,  354  199 

tyrant  ;  and  left  to  themselves  they  had  soon  succeeded  in 
subjecting  Antioch  to  an  unbearable  system  of  oppression. 
The  cries  of  the  victims  were  at  last  heard  in  Milan. 
Being  summoned  to  appear  before  the  master  of  the 
empire,  Gallus  sent  his  wife  in  advance,  knowing  her 
fertility  in  resource.  She,  however,  died  on  the  way,^ 
so  that  he  felt  himself  obliged  to  go  in  person.  As  he 
had  not  been  able  to  assume  the  attitude  of  a  rival,  he 
speedily  found  himself  in  the  position  of  a  culprit  before 
his  judge.  He  was  taken  to  Flanona,  near  Pola,  and  there 
condem.ned  and  executed  (at  the  end  of  354). 

He  had  still  one  brother  remaining,  Julian.  The  latter, 
in  the  following  year,  was  summoned  to  court  and  pro- 
claimed Caesar  (November  6,  355).  Gaul  was  entrusted  to 
him,  and  he  governed  it  well,  gaining  the  gratitude  of  its 
people,  especially  for  the  bravery  and  skill  with  which  he 
defended  them  against  the  barbarians  beyond  the  Rhine. 

But  we  must  now  return  to  the  affairs  of  the  Church. 
The  news  of  the  death  of  Constans  had  burst  upon  the 
East  like  a  thunderclap.  All  the  enemies  of  Athanasius 
in  Syria  and  in  Asia  Minor  had  not,  indeed,  dared  to  show 
their  joy  openly  (for  that  might  have  been  imprudent  and 
dangerous),  but  trembled  with  hopefulness.  Some  of  them 
had  even  plucked  up  courage  to  talk  once  more  of  the 
Council  of  Tyre,  and  the  necessity  of  adhering  to  its 
decisions.  These  were  in  too  great  a  hurry :  Constantius 
refused  to  listen  to  them.  He  wrote  to  Athanasius  and 
assured  him  that  the  wishes  of  his  dead  brother  would  be 
respected,  and  that,  whatever  rumours  might  reach  him,  his 
mind  might  be  at  rest :  he  should  always  be  supported."^ 
The  Egyptian  officials  received  instructions  to  the  same 

^  It  was  she  who  built  at  Rome  the  celebrated  basilica  of  St  Agnes, 
where  this  fact  was  commemorated  by  a  metrical  inscription,  the 
text  of  which  is  still  extant :  Constantina  Deum  venerans  Christoque 
dkata,  etc.  She  was  buried  there,  in  a  mausoleum  which  is  still  in 
existence  (see  above,  p.  51,  note  2).  It  is  this  Constantina  whom 
legend  has  transformed  into  a  holy  Virgin  Constantia,  in  spite  of  the 
fact  that  she  had  been  married  twice,  and  that  in  other  ways  her  life 
bore  only  the  most  distant  resemblance  to  the  evangelical  ideal. 

2  Athan.  Hist.  Ar.  23,  51. 


200  PROSCRIPTION  OF  ATHANASIUS      [ch.  vii. 

effect.  Athanasius,  on  his  part,  published  in  his  own 
defence  a  brochure  illustrated  by  documentary  evidence, 
in  which  he  set  out,  first,  the  decisions  given  in  his  favour 
by  the  Egyptian  episcopate,  by  the  Council  of  Rome,  and 
by  that  of  Sardica ;  and  then  traced  once  more  in  a 
series  of  official  documents,  joined  together  by  a  short 
outline  of  narrative,  the  whole  story  of  the  intrigues 
directed  against  him,  down  to  the  time  of  his  recall  by 
the  Emperor  Constantius,  and  the  retractation  of  Ursacius 
and  Valens.  This  is  the  work  which  we  call  the  Apologia 
against  the  Avians.  Up  to  this  time,  Athanasius  had 
abstained  from  writing  anything  on  the  subject,  for  fear 
that,  as  had  happened  in  the  case  of  Marcellus,  his  words 
might  be  misconstrued.  And  even  now,  he  himself 
scarcely  came  into  the  open,  being  content  to  allow  the 
documents  to  speak  for  themselves. 

There  was  another  important  person  to  whom  the 
change  of  emperors  must  have  seemed  very  unpleasant, 
namely,  the  Bishop  of  Sirmium.  If  he  had  become  a  cause 
of  scandal  to  his  colleagues  of  the  West,  we  can  imagine 
with  what  feelings  he  was  regarded  by  those  in  the  East. 
And  the  Eastern  bishops  were  always  represented  among 
the  personal  attendants  of  Constantius.  As  soon  as  they 
saw  him  installed  at  Sirmium,  they  flocked  thither  and 
prepared  to  settle  their  old  scores  with  "  Scotinus,"  as  they 
called  him.  But  "  Scotinus  "  was  a  man  of  resource.  He 
succeeded  at  the  outset  in  evading  the  council,  and 
managed  to  arrange  that  a  commission  appointed  by  the 
emperor  should  decide  between  himself  and  those  who 
criticized  his  teaching.  Constantius,  who  delighted  in  this 
kind  of  disputation,  appointed  an  Areopagus  of  eight 
officials,  assisted  by  a  staff  of  shorthand  writers.  Photinus 
appeared  before  them,  and  the  opposing  party  chose  as 
their  speaker  Basil,  Bishop  of  Ancyra,  a  man  of  moderate 
opinions  and  a  great  talent  for  oratory.  He,  like  Photinus, 
was  a  Galatian,  and  must  have  lived  for  a  considerable 
time  with  him  amongst  the  clergy  of  Marcellus.  The 
story  of  Paul  of  Samosata  was  reproduced  in  all  its 
details :    Photinus  and  Basil   resumed   the   duel    between 


p.  250-51]  COUNCIL  OF  SIRMIUM  201 

the  Bishop  of  Antioch  and  the  priest  Malchion.^  St 
Epiphanius  had  before  him  the  formal  record  of  this 
discussion,-  which  makes  it  possible  to  form  a  fairly  clear 
idea  of  the  errors  of  Photinus.  Then  the  council  assembled  ; 
the  Bishop  of  Sirmium  received  an  additional  condemna- 
tion from  the  Eastern  episcopate,  and  the  emperor  exiled 
him.  His  place  was  filled  by  a  certain  Germinius,  who 
was  brought  from  Cyzicus,  and  who  shared  the  views  of 
the  party.  The  Eastern  bishops  had  recovered,  on  the 
banks  of  the  Danube,  two  old  friends,  Ursacius  and 
Valens,  who  had  formerly  been  forced  to  desert  them, 
but  who  were  now  free  to  display  their  sympathy,  and 
hastened  to  rejoin  the  main  body. 

A  retaliation  was  being  prepared  ;  but  it  was  necessary 
to  display  caution.  The  Emperor  Constantius  was 
engaged  in  conquering  the  West ;  and  there  were  good 
hopes  that  this  political  victory  might  result  in  complete 
assimilation  in  religious  matters.  But  the  Latins,  as 
experience  had  long  shown,  had  prejudices  which  must  be 
reckoned  with.  The  council  contented  itself  with  publish- 
ing for  the  fourth  time  the  Creed  of  Antioch,  with  an 
appendix  of  twenty-seven  doctrinal  canons,  specially 
directed  against  Marcellus  and  Photinus,  but  without 
mentioning  either  of  them  by  name.  St  Hilary,'^  who,  as 
well  as  St  Athanasius,  has  preserved  for  us  the  text  of  this 
document,  finds  in  it  nothing  objectionable ;  and  indeed, 
if  this  creed  had  been  presented  through  other  hands,  it 
might  have  found  acceptance  in  the  West.  No  doubt 
there  is  no  question  in  it  of  the  li07noousios ;  but  was  it  so 
certain  that  one  could  not  dispense  with  this  formula, 
which  gave  rise  to  so  many  objections,  and  which,  while 
expressing  but  one  aspect  of  the  common  faith,  always 
required  so  many  additions  and  explanations  ?    Even  good 

1  See  vol.  i.,  p.  342.  "•^  Haer.  Ixxi.  i,  2. 

^  Hil.  De  syn.  38-62  ;  Athan.  De  syn.  27.  Socrates,  H.  E.  ii.  29, 
gives  the  date  (351)  of  the  assembly;  and,  notwithstanding  the 
monstrous  blunders  which  he  makes  here,  we  must  acknowledge  that 
the  date  he  gives  fits  in  well  with  the  sequence  of  the  facts  as 
ascertained. 


202  PROSCRIPTION  OF  ATHANASIUS      [ch.  vii. 

honest  persons  might  have  difficulties  in  regard  to  it.  It 
is  true  that  the  homoousios  had  been  canonized  at  Nicaea. 
But,  without  failing  in  respect  for  that  venerable  council, 
which  no  one  then  dreamed  of  doing,  was  it  forbidden  to 
interpret  a  little  the  words  which  it  had  decided  upon  ? 
Such  thoughts  must  have  passed  through  minds  like  that 
of  Basil  of  Ancyra.  They  soon  gained  a  great  success, 
but  it  was  only  a  transitory  one,  for  they  were  the  thoughts, 
not  of  all  the  Easterns,  nor  probably  of  the  conscious  or 
unconscious  majority  of  that  party,  but  only  of  a  group  of 
moderate  persons. 

In  the  meantime,  while  his  enemies  were  agitating  in 
Illyria  and  preparing  for  the  conquest  of  the  West, 
Athanasius  felt  their  intrigues  once  more  beginning  to 
twine  around  him.  The  winter  of  351-352  seems  to  have 
been  spent  in  a  new  attempt  to  get  round  the  Emperor. 
They  assured  him  that  Athanasius,  during  his  stay 
in  the  West,  had  maligned  him  to  his  brother,  and 
that  he  had  concluded  an  alliance  with  Magnentius.^ 
Constantius  was  engaged  in  building  at  Alexandria  a 
great  church,  called  the  Caesareuni  \  one  day,  during  the 
Easter  Festival,  the  faithful,  who  were  somewhat  crowded 
in  the  ordinary  churches,  betook  themselves  to  it  with 
their  bishop.  The  enemies  of  Athanasius  represented 
this  as  a  great  crime  ;  he  ought  to  have  waited  until 
the  Emperor  himself  had  celebrated  its  dedication.  In 
short,  Athanasius  again  became  in  his  eyes  a  dangerous 
person."     The  Eastern  bishops  ended  by  finding  themselves 

^  An  embassy,  sent  to  the  Eastern  court  by  Magnentius  in  350, 
had,  in  order  to  avoid  Vetranio,  disembarked  in  Libya,  and  passed 
through  Alexandria.  Servasius,  Bishop  of  Tongres,  and  Maximus, 
another  bishop,  formed  part  of  it.     Apol.  ad  Const.  9. 

^  Ammianus  Marcellinus  (xv.  7,  6),  who  reproduces  the  gossip  of 
the  army,  represents  Athanasius  as  a  sort  of  political  sorcerer : 
''''  Athanasium  episcopiim  eo  tempore  apud  Alexatidriatn  ultra  pro- 
fessionem  altitis  se  efferentem  scitariqiie  conatutn  externa,  ut prodidere 
rumores  adsidtii,  coetus  in  uniiin  qiiaesiius  eiusdem  loci  miiltoriwi, 
sy nodus,  ut  appellant,  reniovit  a  sacramcnto  quod optinebat.  Dicebatur 
enim  fatidicarmn  sortiiun  fideni,  qiiaeve  augurales  portenderent  alites 
scientissinie  callens,  aliquoties praedixisse futura.  Super  his  intende- 
bantur  et  alia  quoque  a  proposito  legis  abhorrentia  cui praesidebat." 


p.  253]  POPE  LIBERIUS  203 

in  a  position  to  urge  once  more  the  idea  that  Athanasius 
had  not  in  reality  any  recognized  position,  since  he  had 
been  deposed  by  the  Council  of  Tyre.  Nothing  therefore 
remained  to  be  done  but  to  rid  Alexandria  of  him,  and 
to  secure  his  repudiation  by  the  bishops  of  the  West. 

Just  at  this  very  moment  the  Western  Church  lost  its 
head:  Pope  Julius  died  on  April  12,  352,  about  the 
time  that  Constantius  was  marching  against  Aquileia. 
His  place  was  filled,  a  month  later  (May  17),  by  the  deacon 
Liberius,  destined,  under  the  rigime  which  was  beginning, 
to  meet  with  many  misfortunes.  Shortly  after  his 
accession,  various  letters,  emanating  from  Eastern  and 
Egyptian  bishops,^  reached  him,  denouncing  Athanasius 
and  his  crimes.  Like  all  the  superior  clergy  of  Rome, 
Liberius  must  have  known  what  to  believe.  He  read 
the  letters  of  the  Eastern  bishops  "  to  the  Church  and  the 
Council,"  -  and  answered  them,  without  accepting  accusa- 
tions so  often  contradicted.^  By  "  the  council "  we  may 
certainly  understand  the  meeting  of  bishops  which  took 
place  every  year  at  the  Pope's  natale ;  thus  the  date  of  it 
would  be  May  17,  353.  About  the  same  time,  there 
arrived  a  deputation  from  the  Egyptian  bishops  and  the 
clergy  of  Alexandria,  headed  by  Serapion  of  Thmuis, 
the  most  faithful  lieutenant  of  Athanasius.  These 
persons  brought  a  protest,  signed  by  eighty  bishops, 
in  favour  of  their  persecuted  brother.^  The  Pope  then 
addressed  the  Emperor,  in  the  name  of  a  large  number  of 
Italian  bishops,  requesting  that  a  great  council  should  be 

'  The  Meletians,  no  doubt. 

-  Hil.  Frag.  hist.  v.  2.  Letter  from  Liberius  to  Constantius,  in 
354(Jaflfe,  212). 

^  I  omit  here,  as  apocryphal,  the  famous  letter  Studens  pact,  pre- 
served in  the  historical  fragments  of  St  Hilary  {Frag.  hist.  iv.).  It 
cannot  be  reconciled  with  the  attitude  of  Liberius  in  the  following 
years,  and  there  is  every  appearance  that  St  Hilary  gives  it  as  a 
document  fabricated  by  some  member  of  the  Eastern  party. 

*  I  connect  the  sending  of  this  letter  with  the  mission  of  Serapion 
and  his  companions,  which  left  Alexandria  on  May  18,  353,  according 
to  the  Athanasian  Chronicle ;  see  also  the  Chronicle  of  the  Festal 
Letters. 


204  PROSCRIPTION  OF  ATHANASIUS      [ch.  vii. 

convened  at  Aquileia,  to  decide  anew  the  controversy 
which  was  beginning  to  revive.  Constantius  had  previously- 
given  him  reason  to  hope  for  an  assembly  of  this  kind. 
The  papal  legates,  Vincent  of  Capua  and  Marcellus, 
another  Campanian  bishop,  met  the  emperor  at  Aries, 
where  he  was  spending  the  inclement  season  (353-4)- 
They  found  him  in  the  middle  of  the  celebration  of  his 
Tricemialia,  surrounded  by  the  bishops  of  the  country, 
from  whom  he  was  demanding  signatures  against 
Athanasius. 

The  Eastern  quarrels  were  but  little  familiar  to  the 
clergy  of  Gaul.  Ten  years  previously,  at  the  time  of  the 
Council  of  Sardica,  some  of  the  bishops  had  found  them- 
selves mixed  up  in  these  affairs :  this  was  the  case  with 
Maximin  of  Treves,  Verissimus  of  Lyons,  and  Euphratas 
of  Cologne.  The  first,  an  avowed  partisan  of  Athanasius, 
had  been  dead  for  some  little  time,  and  perhaps  the  two 
others  also.  The  signatures,  to  the  number  of  about 
thirty,  which  had  been  collected  in  favour  of  the  decisions 
of  Sardica,  had  no  doubt  been  added,  for  the  most  part, 
on  trust,  at  the  request  of  the  Emperor  Constans  and  of 
important  bishops  such  as  those  of  Treves  and  Lyons. 
At  the  time  of  Constantius'  arrival,  all  this  was  already 
rather  ancient  history.  As  to  preceding  events  the  bishops 
had  but  a  faint  idea  ;  even  the  Council  of  Nicaea  was  almost 
unknown.  Hilary,  Bishop  of  Poitiers,  although  a  well- 
informed  man,  had  never  heard  of  the  famous  Nicene 
Creed,  until  Constantius  had  come  to  disturb  the  peace  in 
which,  on  this  subject,  the  Gallic  episcopate  was  living. 
Possessed  of  but  slight  information  on  these  matters  and 
those  which  lay  behind  them,  the  bishops  could  scarce  help 
following  their  natural  inclination  to  do  what  so  religious 
an  emperor  asked  them.  It  was  in  vain  that  the  Pope's 
representatives  endeavoured  to  arrest  this  open  action,  to 
reserve  the  decision  for  the  council  which  was  to  come,  or, 
at  least,  to  secure  that,  before  condemning  Athanasius, 
they  should  begin  by  reprobating  the  heresy  of  Arius. 
Their  efforts  were  entirely  unsuccessful.  The  eloquence 
of  Valens,  the  spokesman  of  the  Eastern  prelates,  and  the 


p.  255-6]    ATHANASIUS  AND  CONSTANTIUS  205 

general  enthusiasm  for  the  son  of  Constantine,  overcame  all 
resistance.  The  Bishop  of  Aries,  Saturninus,  one  of  the 
first  adherents  secured,  displayed  great  zeal.  The  legates 
themselves  were  carried  away  by  the  stream,  and  signed 
the  condemnation  of  Athanasius.  The  Bishop  of  Treves, 
Paulinus,  alone  had  the  courage  to  protest.  He  was 
deposed  and  sent  into  exile.^ 

The  vessel  which  had  brought  Serapion  to  Italy  had 
passed  on  the  high  seas,  after  leaving  Alexandria,  an 
official  galley,  from  which,  on  May  22,  there  disembarked 
a  messenger  from  the  court,  named  Montanus.  He 
seemed  thwarted  in  his  embassy,  for  his  instructions  were 
to  bring  back  Athanasius  himself  He  handed  the  bishop 
an  imperial  letter  by  which  he  was  authorized,  "according 
to  his  request,"  to  appear  before  his  sovereign.  Athanasius 
had  made  no  request.  Accustomed  to  the  ways  of  the 
court,  he  scented  a  trap  and  excused  himself  His  own 
messengers  were  refused  admittance  to  Constantius,  and 
returned  to  Alexandria.  The  bishop  no  doubt  thought 
that  the  order  would  be  pressed,  and  that,  sooner  or 
later,  he  would  be  forced  to  appear  before  the  emperor. 
In  view  of  this  contingency,  he  prepared  a  defence  of 
himself,  in  a  dignified  style,  worthy  of  being  pronounced 
before  the  court.  He  had  even  gone  so  far  as  to 
anticipate  the  changes  of  countenance  which  his  eloquence 
might  provoke  in  his  imperial  auditor :  "  You  smile,  sire, 
and  your  smile  shows  that  you  agree  .  .  ."  -  This  fine 
speech  was  never  delivered.^  For  more  than  two  years 
the  court  pretended  to  know  nothing  of  Athanasius. 

But  if,  for  the  present,  he  was  left  at  peace  in  Egypt, 
his  enemies  in  Italy  and  Gaul  continued  their  efforts  to 
isolate  him  more  and  more.     Irritated  by  the  opposition 

'  Indignus  ecclesia  ab  episcopis,  dignus  exilio  a  rege  est  iudicatus 
(Hil.  Frag.  hist.  i.  6). 

^  Apol.  ad  Const.  16.  Athanasius  was  very  confident ;  for  it  was 
not  at  all  an  easy  matter  to  bring  a  smile  to  the  august  lips  of  the 
Emperor  Constantius. 

^  Athanasius  took  it  in  hand  again  later  and  published  it,  with 
additions  supplied  by  the  sequel  of  his  tragic  history.  It  is  his 
Apology^Jo  the  Enipero?'  Constantius. 


206  PROSCRIPTION  OF  ATHANASIUS      [ch.  vii. 

of  Liberius,  the  Emperor  had  sent  a  proclamation  to 
Rome,  in  which  the  Pope  was  violently  abused.  He 
was  reproached  for  his  ambition,  his  boasting,  his  blind 
obstinacy,  his  spirit  of  discord.  Liberius  defended  him- 
self. Grieved  as  he  was  at  the  hostile  attitude  of  his 
sovereign  and  the  weakness  of  his  own  legates,  he  did 
not  lose  courage ;  he  addressed  himself  a  second  time  to 
the  emperor,  in  order  to  obtain  a  council,  in  which,  after 
a  confirmation  of  the  faith  of  Nicaea,  all  questions  relating 
to  persons  might  be  arranged  by  general  consent.^  His 
letter  was  carried  by  fresh  legates,  men  to  whom  fear  was 
unknown  and  from  whom  no  weakness  was  to  be  feared, 
but  rather  excess  of  zeal :  these  were  Lucifer,  Bishop  of 
Caliaris,  the  priest  Pancratius,  and  the  deacon  Hilary. 
Liberius  tried  at  the  same  time  to  fortify  around  himself 
the  courage  of  the  Italian  bishops  ;  he  confided  his  anxiety 
to  Hosius  of  Cordova,  the  veteran  warrior  in  these  melan- 
choly conflicts.^ 

Constantius,  who  had  nothing  to  fear  from  so  pliable 
a  body  of  bishops,  listened  to  the  Pope's  suggestions,  and 
consented  to  the  assembling  of  a  council,  which  was 
actually  held,  not  indeed  at  Aquileia,  but  at  Milan,  in  the 
early  months  of  the  year  355.  Liberius  had  commended 
his  legates  to  Eusebius,  Bishop  of  Vercellae,  formerly  one 
of  the  Roman  clergy,  well  known  for  the  holiness  of  his 
life  and  his  strength  of  character.  He  also  relied  much 
upon  the  Bishop  of  Aquileia,  Fortunatian.  When  the 
bishops  were  assembled,  Eusebius,  who  was  not  at  all 
easy  in  mind  as  to  their  intentions,  was  in  no  hurry  to 
present  himself;  he  needed  to  be  summoned  in  the  name 
of  the  emperor,  and  to  be  entreated  by  the  Roman  legates 
to  appear,  "  as  St  Peter  formerly  did,  to  expose  the  wiles  of 
the  Magician."  At  last  he  presented  himself,  escorted  by 
the  legates.  But,  for  ten  days,  the  bishops  had  been 
working  incessantly  :  they  were  beginning  to  show  signs 
of  weakness.  Eusebius  was  implored  to  sign  the  con- 
demnation of  Athanasius.     He  declared  that  several  of 

1  Jaffe,  212  (Hil.  Frag.  hist.  v.). 

-  Jaffe,  209,  210  (Hil.  Frag.  hist.  vi.  3). 


p.  268]     COUNCIT.S  OF  MILAN  AND  B]^:ZIERS       207 

the  persons  present  appeared  to  him  to  be  heretics,  and 
that,  to  remove  doubts  on  this  point,  every  one  must 
sign  the  Creed  of  Nicaea.  As  he  said  this,  he  drew  out  a 
copy  of  it,  and  handed  it  first  to  the  Bishop  of  Milan,  who 
took  a  pen  and  was  on  the  point  of  signing  it,  when  Valens 
threw  himself  on  him,  and  tore  pen  and  paper  out  of  his 
hands,  crying  out  that  such  a  mode  of  proceeding  could 
not  be  allowed.  A  great  disturbance  ensued.  The 
faithful  appeared  on  the  scene,  and  threatened  to  interfere 
on  behalf  of  their  bishop.  The  deliberations  were  then 
transferred  from  the  church  to  the  palace,  and  soon 
changed  their  form.  The  bishops  were  asked  to  choose 
between  signing  and  exile.  Three  only  accepted  exile 
— Lucifer,  Eusebius,  and  Dionysius ;  all  the  others 
submitted.^ 

Further  measures  were  taken  with  regard  to  those 
who  were  absent.  Commissioners  went  from  one  Church 
to  another,  demanding  signatures ;  some  of  the  clergy  of 
Ursacius  and  Valens  accompanied  the  imperial  envoys. 
In  Gaul  a  council  was  held  at  Beziers  in  the  following 
year  (356),  before  which  several  belated  laggards  were 
summoned.  Among  their  number  was  Hilary  of  Poitiers. 
Immediately  after  the  Council  of  Milan,  he  had  organized 
a  protest  in  Gaul  against  the  sentence  of  exile  on  the 
bishops,  and,  in  general,  against  the  intervention  of  the 
civil  power  in  questions  of  faith  and  communion.  His 
first  Apology  to  Constantius'^  may  be  considered  as  the 
manifesto  of  this  opposition.  Hilary  and  his  party  had 
separated  Ursacius,  Valens,  and  Saturninus  from  their 
communion,  and  had  called  to  repentance  others  who  had 
given  way  at  their  instigation.  He  was  compelled  to 
present  himself  before  the  Council  of  Beziers.  He 
absolutely  refused  to  change  his  attitude,  and  carried  with 
him  by  his  example  his  colleague  of  Toulouse,  Rhodanius, 

^  Upon  this  council,  see  especially  Hilary,  Ad  Const,  i.  8,  com- 
pleted by  Athanasius,  Hist.  Ar.  32-34,  Sulpicius  Severus,  Chron.  ii. 
39,  and  the  letters  collected  by  Mansi,  vol.  iii.,  p.  326  et  seq. 

-  Of  this  document  we  only  possess  a  mutilated  text ;  Sulpicius 
Severus  {Chron.  ii.  39)  had  read  the  whole  of  it.  The  Cssar  Julian 
seems  to  have  attempted  to  defend  Hilary  (Hil.  Ad  Const,  ii.  2). 


208  PROSCRIPTION  OF  ATHANASIUS      [ch.  vii. 

a  man  of  a  more  accommodating  disposition,  but  one  who, 
at  the  decisive  moment,  also  made  his  choice  in  favour  of 
exile. 

Pope  Liberius  was  treated  in  a  more  ceremonious 
manner.  His  attitude  had  not  changed :  he  was  for  the 
exiles  against  the  government.  At  the  outset,  he  had 
written  to  Eusebius,  Dionysius,  and  Lucifer,  a  touching 
letter,  in  which  he  expressed  to  them  his  regret  at  not 
being  able  to  follow  them  yet,  and  his  firm  persuasion 
that  his  own  turn  would  not  be  long  in  coming.^  His 
envoys,  the  priest  Eutropius  and  the  deacon  Hilary,  were 
ill  received ;  they  were  both  exiled,  and  the  deacon  had 
in  addition  to  endure  the  torture  of  the  lash.^  The  eunuch 
Eusebius,  a  trusted  agent,  was  sent  to  Rome  to  induce  the 
Pope  to  yield  :  his  arguments  met  with  no  success.  In 
vain  he  produced  his  purse ;  in  vain  he  emptied  it  at  the 
tomb  of  St  Peter:  Liberius  caused  the  money  to  be  cast 
forth  outside.  The  prefect  Leontius  was  then  instructed 
to  send  the  rebellious  pontiff  to  court.  This  was  not  an 
easy  matter,  for  Liberius  was  much  beloved  by  the 
populace ;  it  was  necessary  to  seize  him  by  night,  and  to 
adopt  great  precautions.^ 

However,  it  was  at  last  accomplished.  Liberius  was 
carried  off  to  Milan.  Brought  into  the  emperor's  presence, 
he  could  only  repeat  the  protest  he  had  been  making 
ever  and  anon  for  two  years :  he  could  not  condemn 
persons  unheard  ;  the  decision  at  Tyre,  not  having  been 
based  on  a  discussion  in  which  both  sides  had  been 
listened  to,  could  be  of  no  value  whatever;  it  was 
necessary,  first  of  all,  to  recall  the  exiles,  and  to  make 
sure  that  everyone  was  in  agreement  with  regard  to  the 
faith  of  Nicaea ;  then,  a  meeting  should  be  held  at 
Alexandria,  in  the  actual  place  where  the  facts  in  dispute 
had  taken  place.  Of  this  interview  we  possess  a  kind  of 
formal  record,*  in  which  the  figures  of  the  speakers — the 

1  Jaffe,  216  (Hil.  Frag.  hist.  vi.  1-2).  "-  Athan.  Hist.  Ar.  41. 

3  Ammianus,  xv.  7,  6.     Cf.  Athan.  Hist.  Ar.  35-40. 
**  Preserved   by   Theodoret,  ii.  13;  Sozomen,  iv.   11,  also   had    it 
before  him.     Cf.  Athan.  Hist  Ar.  39,  40. 


p.  260-61]  EXILE  OF  LIBERIUS  209 

Pope,  the    Emperor,   the   eunuch    Eusebius,   and    Bishop 
Epictetus^ — stand  out  in  striking"  relief. 

"  Of  what  consequence  art  thou  ? "  said  the  emperor, 
"  thou,  who  alone  takest  the  part  of  an  impious  man,  and 
dost  thus  disturb  the  peace  of  the  whole  world  ?  "  "  It  is 
no  matter  if  I  do  stand  alone,"  replied  the  bishop,  "  the 
faith  will  lose  nothing  by  that.  In  the  days  of  old, 
there  were  but  three,  and  they  resisted,"  "  How ! " 
interrupted  Eusebius,  "  dost  thou  take  our  emperor  for 
Nebuchadnezzar!"  "A  great  deal  he  cares,"  said 
Epictetus,  "  for  the  faith,  or  for  ecclesiastical  decisions ! 
What  he  wants,  is  to  be  able  to  boast  to  the  Roman 
senators  that  he  has  defied  his  sovereign."  The  conference 
ended  by  a  final  invitation  to  sign.  The  Pope  was 
granted  a  delay  of  three  days ;  he  refused  it,  and  also 
refused  the  financial  assistance  offered  by  the  emperor  and 
empress.  He  was  then  sent  to  Berea  in  Thrace,  where 
he  was  put  into  the  charge  of  one  of  the  heads  of  the 
party,  the  Bishop  Demophilus. 

There  still  remained  the  "  Father  of  the  Councils,"  the 
living  embodiment  of  the  memories  of  Nicaea,  the 
centenarian  Bishop  of  Cordova.  In  spite  of  his  years, 
Hosius  was  forced  to  come  to  Milan ;  but  he  remained 
deaf  to  all  entreaties,  and  had  perforce  to  be  sent  back 
to  his  distant  diocese.  There,  he  was  again  attacked 
by  letters  and  messengers.  He  resisted  them  all,  and 
wrote  a  most  touching  letter  to  the  emperor.  Among 
other  things,  he  said  that,  having  confessed  the  faith 
under  the  emperor's  grandfather  Maximian,  he  was  not 
disposed  to  deny  it  now,  to  please  the  Arians ;  that  he 
knew  for  a  certainty  the  innocence  of  Athanasius  and 
the  bad  faith  of  his  accusers  ;  that  the  emperor  ought  to 
occupy  himself  with  his  own  affairs,  and  leave  the  bishops 
to  deal  with  those  of  the  Church. 

But  no  eloquence  was  of  any  avail  to  move  Constantius. 
He  had  among  the  bishops  of  Spain  one  man  who  was 

^  This  Epictetus  was  a  young  ecclesiastical  adventurer,  whom  the 
court  party  had  caused  to  be  elected  Bishop  of  Centumcellae  {Civita- 
vecchia)^ and  charged  to  keep  an  eye  on  the  Pope. 

II  O 


210  PROSCRIPTION  OF  ATHANASIUS      [ch.  vii. 

capable  of  anything,  Potamius,  the  Bishop  of  Lisbon,  who 
played  in  that  country  almost  exactly  the  same  part  as 
Saturninus  in  Gaul,  and  who,  for  that  reason,  had  been 
roughly  treated  by  Hosius.  When  he  complained  of  this, 
Constantius  again  summoned  the  rebellious  patriarch 
before  him.^  They  succeeded  in  transporting  him  as  far 
as  Sirmium,  where  the  court  was  then  in  residence,  and 
there  he  was  kept  in  exile. 

Now  unity  was  accomplished.  Neither  in  the  West 
nor  in  the  East  was  there  one  single  bishop  in  the 
possession  of  his  see  who  had  not  declared  against 
Athanasius.  This  was  the  time  to  take  formal  action 
against  him.  It  seemed  that  there  was  nothing  more  to 
be  done  but  to  send  him  a  sentence  of  exile,  or  to  carry 
him  off,  as  they  had  carried  off  Liberius.  But  the  Pope 
of  Alexandria  had  around  him  a  populace  even  more 
devoted  and  more  unmanageable  than  that  of  Rome ; 
and,  besides,  he  had  in  his  possession  official  letters, 
whereby  Constantius  had  solemnly  undertaken  never  to 
abandon  him.  To  get  out  of  these  difficulties,  the 
government  conceived  the  idea  of  forcing  his  hand.  They 
resolved  to  organize  at  all  costs  a  disturbance  in 
Alexandria. 

The  project  was  difficult  of  execution.  An  imperial 
notary,  Diogenes,  arrived  in  the  month  of  August  355, 
advised  the  bishop  to  go  away,  and  began  to  work  upon 
the  clergy  and  the  faithful.  But  Athanasius  sheltered 
himself  behind  the  emperor's  letters,  protesting  that  he 
would  not  leave  Alexandria  without  formal  orders 
emanating  from  him ;  as  to  the  people  themselves,  it 
was  no  use  to  be  harsh  with  them,  they  would  not  submit 
to  it.  At  the  end  of  four  months  Diogenes  returned, 
leaving  things  exactly  as  when  he  arrived. 

During  the  winter  another  attempt  was  made.  Troops 
were  collected  from  the  whole  of  Egypt,  under  the 
command  of  the  Dux  Syrianus,  who  was  placed  in  charge 
of  the  business.     Athanasius  made  no  movement,  declaring 

'  Marcellini  el  Fausti?ii  Libelhts  precuvi,  32  {Coll.  Avellana,  ed, 
Giinther,  p.  15). 


p.  263]  THE  CHURCH  OF  THEONAS  211 

that  a  bishop  could  not  desert  his  flock,  unless  for  most 
serious  reasons ;  but  that  he  would  do  so,  if  the  emperor 
really  wished  it,  or  even  if  the  "  dux "  or  the  prefect  of 
Egypt  would  give  him  a  written  order  to  that  effect. 
The  people  supported  his  attitude,  and  asked  permission 
to  send  a  deputation  to  the  emperor.  The  tone  of  these 
protests  caused  Syrianus  to  reflect ;  he  declared  that  he 
would  write  to  the  emperor  himself,  and  that,  in  the  mean- 
time, he  would  take  no  action  against  the  churches. 

This  promise  was  not  kept. 

On  February  8,  at  midnight,  the  Church  of  Theonas 
was  surrounded  on  all  sides.  It  was  still  the  principal 
church  of  the  city  :  Athanasius  was  celebrating  in  it  one 
of  the  nocturnal  offices,  called  vigils  (Havvvxioe?'),  which 
only  attracted  the  more  devout ;  hence,  there  was  not  a 
great  crowd.  The  Dux  Syrianus  caused  the  doors  to  be 
forced ;  his  soldiers,  augmented  by  a  disorderly  rabble, 
burst  in,  with  drawn  swords  and  trumpets  sounding.  Their 
helmets  gleamed  in  the  light  of  the  candles,  their  arrows 
flew  through  the  church.  We  can  imagine  the  tumult 
which  ensued.  The  consecrated  virgins  were  represented 
by  a  large  proportion  in  the  devout  congregation ;  they  were 
assailed  with  obscene  cries  ;  several  were  killed,  and  others 
were  outraged.  Trampled  under  foot  and  crushed  at  the 
exits,  the  faithful  left  many  corpses  upon  the  floor.  In  the 
midst  of  all  this,  the  bishop  remained  upon  his  seat ; 
monks  and  devoted  laymen  surrounded  him.  They 
succeeded  at  last  in  getting  him  away,  but  it  was  not 
without  being  severely  bruised  that  he  at  last  managed 
to  penetrate  through  the  crowd.  Those  who  were 
seeking  for  him  did  not  recognize  him.  Besides,  they 
scarcely  wished  to  take  him  prisoner  ;  what  they  wanted 
was  that  he  should  take  himself  off,  that  he  should  seem 
to  have  been  driven  away  by  a  popular  rising.  They 
had  their  wish.  From  that  hour,  Athanasius  was  seen 
no  more.^ 

'  Later  on  (about  388),  Palladius  saw  in  Alexandria  an  old  nun, 
who,  it  was  said,  had  given  shelter  to  Athanasius,  during  the  six  years 
of  his  disappearance.     He  had  been  concealed  in  her  house,  certain 


212  PROSCRIPTION  OF  ATHANASIUS      [ch.  vii. 

When  the  day  dawned,  the  Christians  of  Alexandria 
hastened  to  the  authorities  to  protest.  But  the  Dux 
Syrianus  was  already  preparing  the  ofificial  version  of  the 
affair ;  there  had  been  no  occasion  for  scandal ;  Athanasius 
had  passed  judgment  upon  himself  by  leaving  Alexandria 
of  his  own  free  will.  In  attestation  of  this  signatures 
were  demanded,  and  those  who  held  back  were  beaten. 
But,  on  February  12,  the  people  of  Alexandria  caused  a 
second^  protest  to  be  posted  up,  in  which  the  number  of 
those  killed  was  given,  and  the  presence  of  the  Dux  in  the 
Church  of  Theonas,  accompanied  by  an  imperial  notary, 
Hilary,  was  stated.  The  municipal  strategos  (duumvir), 
Gorgonius,  was  there  also  ;  and  his  testimony  was  appealed 
to.  Besides,  the  swords,  javelins,  and  arrows,  which  had 
been  used,  had  been  kept  in  the  church ;  and  were  still 
being  kept,  as  a  proof  of  the  violence  employed.  The 
prefect  of  Egypt  and  the  police  were  entreated  to  bring 
these  facts  to  the  knowledge  of  the  emperor  and  of  the 
praetorian  prefects  ;  and  the  captains  of  vessels  were  asked 
to  spread  the  news  in  other  ports.  Above  all,  it  was 
added,  let  no  one  think  of  sending  to  the  Alexandrians 
another  bishop ;  they  would  not  endure  him,  and  would 
remain  faithful  to  Athanasius. 

No  attention  was  paid  to  them.  A  Count  Heraclius 
was  sent  to  Egypt,  as  bearer  of  imperial  letters  to  the 
senate  and  people  of  Alexandria.  In  these  Constantius 
excused  himself  for  having,  out  of  consideration  for  his 
brother,  tolerated  for  a  time  the  presence  of  Athanasius 
in  Alexandria ;  but  now  Athanasius  was  a  public  enemy ; 
he  must  be  sought  for  and  found,  at  any  cost.-     On  June 

that  no  one  would  seek  him  in  the  house  of  a  young  woman  as  she 
then  was.  This  story,  improbable  in  itself,  is  contradicted  by  what 
St  Athanasius  himself  tells  us  with  regard  to  his  wanderings  as  an 
exile.  But  it  is  possible  that  the  person  in  question  may  have  served 
as  an  intermediary  for  his  correspondence,  or  may  have  given  him 
hospitality  from  time  to  time  during  his  secret  visits  to  Alexandria 
{Historia  Lausiaca,  c.  64,  ed.  Butler). 

1  The  text  of  this  protest  has  been  preserved  ;  Athanasius  included 
it  in  his  History  of  the  Arians. 

'^  Hist.  Ar.  48,  49 


p.  265-6]  GEORGE  OF  CAPPADOCIA  213 

14,  the  churches  were  taken  from  Athanasius*  clergy  and 
handed  over  to  the  Arians.  This  was  not  done,  as  may 
be  imagined,  without  resistance.  In  the  Caesareum 
especially,  there  were  horrible  scenes.^  The  opposing 
party  were  not  satisfied  with  seizing  the  churches ;  an 
address  was  sent  to  the  emperor,  in  which  they  declared 
their  readiness  to  accept  any  bishop  he  might  deign  to 
send  them.  This  petition  was  covered  with  signatures 
of  pagans  and  Arians.  Strange  to  say,  the  pagans  had 
been  warned  that,  if  they  did  not  take  a  side,  their  temples 
would  be  closed. 

Finally,  on  February  24,  357,  the  nominee  of  the 
emperor  and  of  his  religious  party  made  his  entrance 
into  the  city  of  Alexandria.  He  came  from  Antioch, 
where  he  had  been  invested  by  a  council  of  about  thirty 
bishops,  from  Syria,  Thrace,  and  Asia  Minor.-  He  was  a 
certain  George,  a  native  of  Cappadocia,  like  so  many 
notable  persons  of  the  time.  He  had  formerly  held  a  post 
at  Constantinople  in  the  department  of  finance,  and 
there,  it  was  said,  he  had  shown  himself  so  honest  that 
they  were  obliged  to  part  with  him.^  Since  then,  he  had 
led  a  wandering  life,  in  the  course  of  which  he  had  come 
into  touch  with  the  future  Caesar,  Julian,  and  had  even 
lent  him  books.  He  had  the  reputation  of  being  exceed- 
ingly fond  of  money.  He  was,  besides,  a  hard,  merciless 
man,  capable  of  going  to  any  imaginable  length  with  a 
brazen  face.  This  character  suited  well  with  the  demands 
of  the  situation  which  awaited  him  in  Alexandria.  It 
remained  to  be  seen,  which  would  be  stronger,  the  man  or 
these  demands. 

At  first,  all  went  as  he  desired.  With  him  had  been 
associated  a  military  commander  well  fitted  for  rough 
measures,  the  Dux  Sebastian,  a  Manichean  in  religion, 
and  a  man  difficult  to  soften.  After  a  few  weeks,  the 
ninety  bishops  of  Egypt  had  become  acquainted  with 
George  :  sixteen  of  them  were  exiled,  thirty  of  them  were 

1  Hist.  Ar.  55-58.  -  Sozomen,  iv.  8. 

^  St  Athanasius  {^Hist.  Ar.  51)  calls  him  a  devourer  of  the  treasury 
(Taf.i.€t6<payos)  ;  cf.  i'd/d.  75  :   a<piTepL(T6.n(vov  wavTa  Kal  8i'  avrb  tovto  <pvy6vTa, 


214  PROSCRIPTION  OF  ATHANASIUS      [en.  vii. 

obliged  to  flee  ;  and  the  others  were  more  or  less  disturbed. 
They  were  called  upon  to  renounce  communion  with 
Athanasius,  and  accept  it  with  George  :  those  who  held 
back  were  replaced  without  mercy.  As  to  Alexandria 
itself,  the  slightest  opposition  was  immediately  repressed. 
Those  of  the  clergy  who  remained  faithful  were  sent  into 
exile,  or  condemned  to  the  mines ;  the  terrible  metalluui 
of  Phaeno  once  more  received  confessors,  as  in  the  days  of 
Maximin  Daia.  They  were  forbidden  to  hold  meetings  of 
any  kind  in  the  city,  even  for  the  mere  distribution  of 
alms.  If  they  tried  to  assemble  in  the  outskirts,  near  the 
cemeteries,  the  Dux  Sebastian  arrived  with  his  troops  ; 
the  meeting  was  broken  up ;  the  women,  especially  the 
consecrated  virgins,  who  naturally  figured  at  the  head  of 
the  most  zealous,  were  ill-treated,  beaten  with  thorny 
branches,  half-roasted  on  braziers,  to  make  them  declare 
allegiance  to  Arius  and  George.  The  dead  remained  on 
the  ground  and  their  relations  had  difficulty  in  obtaining 
permission  to  bury  them  ;  the  prisoners,  men  and  women, 
were  deported  through  the  desert,  as  far  as  the  Great 
Oasis. 

This  reign  of  terror  lasted  eighteen  months.  The 
Christians  were  not  the  only  ones  who  suffered  from  it. 
The  new  bishop  began  to  speculate,  making  a  "  corner " 
in  nitre,  the  salt  works,  and  the  marshes  where  the  papyrus 
and  calamus  grew ;  even  organizing  a  monopoly  in 
funeral  arrangements.^  At  the  end  of  August  358,  the 
Alexandrians,  tired  of  his  tyranny,  rose  in  revolt,  and 
proceeded  to  attack  him,  in  the  Church  of  Dionysius.  It 
was  not  without  difficulty  that  his  friends  succeeded  this 
time  in  rescuing  him  from  those  who  desired  to  do  him 
injury.  He  departed  a  few  days  later,  and  for  more  than 
three  years  kept  away  from  Alexandria.  But  the  struggle 
continued  after  his  departure.  At  one  moment  the 
Athanasians  regained  possession  of  their  churches ;  but 
the  Dux  Sebastian  compelled  them  to  give  them  up. 
While  Constantius  lived,  the  coercive  power  remained  with 
their  opponents :  so  far  as  the  government  was  concerned, 
^  Epiph.  Haer.  Ixxvi.  i. 


p.  268]  ATHANASIUS  IN  EXILE  215 

Athanasius  had  ceased  to  exist.  For  all  that,  from  the 
shelter  of  his  hiding-places,  he  did  not  fail  to  disturb  from 
time  to  time  the  slumbers  of  those  in  office.  It  was  in 
vain  that  Constantius  had  congratulated  the  Alexandrians 
on  the  "  alacrity  "  (!)  they  had  shown  in  driving  Athanasius 
away,  and  rallying  to  George.^  The  emperor  did  not 
really  feel  comfortable  about  the  matter.  And,  as  a 
stimulus  to  his  uneasiness,  Athanasius  sent  him  his 
Apology,  which  had  long  been  prepared  and  was  now 
supplemented  by  appendices  dealing  with  the  recent 
events.  Since  his  eviction  from  the  Church  of  Theonas, 
he  no  longer  appeared  in  public ;  for  six  years  the  police 
sought  for  him  in  vain.  Every  respectable  inhabitant  of 
Egypt  was  on  his  side.  He  was  the  defender  of  the  Faith, 
the  lawful  Pope,  the  common  father  ;  he  was  also — and  it 
was  a  great  recommendation — the  enemy,  the  victim,  of  the 
government.  The  desert  was  kind  to  him :  he  could 
knock  without  fear  at  the  doors  of  monasteries  and 
anchorites'  cells.  With  the  exception  of  a  few  malcontents, 
who  only  showed  themselves  under  the  protection  of  the 
soldiery,  the  populace  was  entirely  at  his  orders.  He  was 
never  betrayed  ;  his  movements  were  never  tracked  by 
the  police.  Like  the  true  Egyptian  that  he  was,  he  was 
not  above  playing  them  a  trick  now  and  then.  One 
evening  as  he  was  going  up  the  Nile  in  a  boat,  he  heard 
behind  him  the  sound  of  oars :  it  was  an  official  galley. 
They  hailed  his  boat:  "Have  you  seen  Athanasius?" 
"  I  think  so,"  he  replied,  disguising  his  voice.  "  Is  he 
far  off?"  "No,  he  is  quite  near  you,  on  ahead;  row 
hard."  The  galley  darted  southwards,  and  the  outlaw, 
turning  about,  quietly  returned  home. 

The  rumours  from  the  outer  world  reached  his  ears  : 
his  emissaries  kept  him  carefully  informed.  He  was  no 
longer  afraid  to  write.  Formerly,  he  had  not  done  so 
willingly,  fearing  to  give  a  handle  to  his  enemies  and  to 
bring  about  his  own  ruin.  But,  now  that  the  ruin  had 
come,  there  was  no  longer  anything  to  lose.  One  day  he 
heard  that  at  Antioch  they  were  making  jokes  about  his 
'  See  the  letter  II  tx.lv  ■tzb\i%  (Athan.  Apol.  ad  Const.  30). 


216  PROSCRIPTION  OF  ATHANASIUS      [ch.  vii. 

flight.  He  seized  his  pen :  "  I  hear  that  Leontius  of 
Antioch,  Narcissus  of  Nero's  city,^  George  of  Laodicea, 
and  the  other  Arians  are  expending  their  lewd  wit  on  me 
and  tearing  me  to  pieces  ;  they  treat  me  as  a  coward 
because  I  have  not  allowed  them  to  assassinate  me." 
This  is  how  he  begins  the  Apology  for  his  flight  \  Leontius 
and  company  would  have  done  better  not  to  provoke  its 
publication.  The  leisure  afforded  by  his  exile  Athanasius 
employed  in  combating  the  heretics ;  it  was  then,  I  think, 
that  he  wrote  his  four  treatises  against  the  Arians,  the 
fourth  of  which  is  really  directed  against  Sabellianism  old 
and  new.  To  the  good  monks,  whose  guest  he  often  was, 
he  relates  the  life  of  their  patriarch  Antony,  who  had  been 
a  faithful  friend  to  him,  and  who  had  just  died.  It  was 
for  them  also,  to  put  them  in  touch  with  the  controversies 
of  the  time,  that  he  wrote  his  curious  History  of  the  Arians  {• 
in  a  lively  and  picturesque  style,  well  calculated  to  please 
those  big  children.  Observe  how  he  dramatizes  the 
situations,  and  makes  his  characters  speak.  The  Easterns 
are  arriving  at  Sardica :  "  There  is  a  mistake,"  they  say. 
"  We  travelled  in  company  with  counts,  and  the  case  is  to 
be  judged  without  them.  Certes,  we  are  condemned 
already.  You  know  what  the  orders  are  :  Athanasius  has 
at  hand  all  the  documents  relating  to  the  Mareotis  affair  ; 
by  their  means  he  will  clear  himself,  and  cover  us  all  with 
confusion.  Let  us  hasten  to  find  some  excuse,  and  to 
depart ;  otherwise,  we  are  lost.  It  is  better  to  incur  the 
shame  of  a  retreat  than  the  confusion  of  being  denounced 
as  false  accusers,"^  As  Athanasius  knows  the  stories  of 
all  his  enemies,  he  cannot  resist  the  pleasure  of  confiding 
some  of  them  to  the  solitaries.  Thus  he  tells  them  that  if 
the  Bishop  of  Antioch  mutilated  himself,  some  time  back, 
in  the  same  way  as  Origen  did,  it  was  for  less  creditable 
reasons.*  Eunuchs  never  fail  to  excite  his  mordant 
humour.  The  court  is  full  of  them;  they  have  supported 
all  the  intrigues  of  which  he  has  been  the  victim.  "  How 
can  you   expect,"   he   says,  "  such  people   to    understand 

^  Neronias  in  Cilicia.  ^  The  beginning  is  lost. 

3  Hist.  Ar.  15.  4  Hist.  Ar.  28. 


p.  271]  HISTORY  OF  THE  ARIANS  217 

anything  about  the  generation  of  the  Son  of  God  ? "  ^ 
With  the  monks  Athanasius  felt  himself  entirely  at  home. 
Of  the  emperor  himself,  that  solemn  and  ceremonious 
sovereign,  he  speaks  with  a  marked  absence  of  ceremony : 
we  are  very  far  from  the  Apology  to  Constantius,  with 
its  official  adjectives.  The  emperor  is  called  simply 
Constantius.  Athanasius  even  goes  so  far  as  to  give  him 
a  nick-name  :  "  Costyllius,"  he  says,  "  who  would  dare  to 
call  him  a  Christian?  Is  he  not  rather  the  picture  of 
Antichrist  ? "  - 

Language  of  this  sort  could  not  be  used  anywhere  but 
in  the  desert. 

1  Hist.  Ar.  38.  2  ffisf^  jir^ .  cf.  80. 


CHAPTER   VIII 

THE   DEFEAT   OF   ORTHODOXY 

The  Church  of  Antioch  in  the  time  of  Bishop  Leontius.  Paulinus  ; 
Flavian  and  Diodore  :  Aetius  and  Theophilus.  State  of  parties 
in  357.  The  falling  away  of  Liberius.  The  formulary  of  Sirmium 
accepted  by  Hosius.  Anomoeans  and  Homoiousians.  Western 
protests.  Eudoxius  at  Antioch  :  triumph  of  Aetius.  Basil  of 
Ancyra  and  the  homoiousian  reaction.  Return  of  Pope  Liberius. 
Success  and  violence  of  Basil :  his  defeat  by  the  advanced  party. 
Formula  of  359.  Councils  of  Ariminum  and  of  Seleucia.  Acacius 
of  Csesarea.  Development  of  events  at  Constantinople  :  general 
prevarication.  Despair  of  Hilary.  The  Council  of  360.  Eudoxius, 
Bishop  of  Constantinople.  Meletius  and  Euzoius  at  Antioch. 
Julian  proclaimed  Augustus.     Death  of  Constantius. 

The  city  of  Antioch,  at  the  middle  of  the  fourth  century, 
was  for  the  most  part  Christian.  There  were  still  temples 
and  still  pagans ;  but  the  number  of  the  latter  was  rapidly 
diminishing  :  the  contagion  of  example — especially  imperial 
example — peculiarly  effectual  in  a  city  where  the  court 
often  resided,  denuded  the  ancient  altars  of  worshippers, 
and  filled  the  ranks  of  the  Church.  The  time  was  already 
in  sight  when  the  Church  would  attract  to  itself  the  entire 
population ;  and  learned  pagans,  such  as  the  famous 
rhetorician  Libanius,  already  appeared  as  somewhat 
behind  the  times. 

However,  if  the  flock  of  Christ  was  receiving  constant 
accessions,  it  left  much  to  be  desired  from  the  point  of 
view  of  unity  and  mutual  understanding.  To  say  nothing 
of  old  schisms,  of  Marcionites,  Novatians,  or  Paulianists, 
the  theological  disputes  of  the  period  had  resulted  in  the 
formation  of  various  ecclesiastical  cliques,  which  could  with 

218 


r.  273]  '      SCHISMS  AT  ANTIOCH  219 

difficulty  be  brought  to  live  together  in  peace.  Of  course, 
the  mass  of  the  people  contented  themselves  with  a 
rudimentary  Christianity ;  they  left  "  the  doctors "  to 
wrangle  and  hurl  texts  at  each  other,  and  councils  to 
frame  and  reframe  without  ceasing  the  formulas  of  the 
creed  ;  they  followed  the  offices  of  the  Church,  and  the 
distributions  of  alms,  without  troubling  their  heads  much 
about  the  leanings  of  the  superior  clergy.  When  the  time 
came  for  electing  a  bishop,  they  were  told  which  name 
they  ought  to  acclaim,  and  they  acclaimed  it  on  trust. 
Since  the  deposition  of  Eustathius,  the  people  had  taken 
part,  under  these  conditions,  in  the  installation  of  several 
bishops  suggested  by  the  Arians.  At  the  time  we  have 
reached,  they  gathered  themselves  beneath  the  pastoral 
staff  of  Bishop  Leontius,  a  man  of  scant  sympathy  with 
Athanasius,  an  Arian  at  bottom,  or  with  Arian  tendencies. 
In  bygone  days  he  had  had  not  a  (ew  adventures ;  but 
age  had  now  overtaken  him,  and  was  marked  on  the 
bishop's  head  by  a  beautiful  crown  of  white  hair.  Now 
and  again  he  was  seen  to  pass  his  hand  over  it,  and  was 
heard  to  say  :  "  When  this  snow  has  melted,  there  will  be 
mud  in  Antioch."  Who  could  have  been  better  informed 
than  he  upon  the  divisions  in  his  Church  ? 

Already,  a  certain  section  had  for  a  long  time  been 
holding  themselves  aloof.  The  deposition  of  Eustathius, 
in  Constantine's  time,  had  not  been  accepted  by  everyone  ; 
a  party  had  been  formed  to  support  him  and  to  demand 
his  restoration.  Eustathius  had  died  in  exile ;  but  the 
Eustathians  had  not  rejoined  the  main  body.  They 
continued  to  hold  themselves  apart,  under  the  direction 
of  a  priest  named  Paulinus.  This  little  group  held 
resolutely  to  the  Council  of  Nicsea,  to  the  JiomoousioSy 
without  explanations  or  additions  :  of  the  three  hypostases, 
a  formula  which  was  brought  forward  from  time  to  time, 
they  spoke  only  with  horror.  At  bottom  the  theological 
position  of  this  small  section  was  closely  akin  to  that  of 
Marcellus  of  Ancyra,  and  the  others  did  not  fail  to  point 
out  this  affinity. 

Other  people,  who  combined  tlie  doctrine  of  the  three 


220  THE  DEFEAT  OF  ORTHODOXY       [ch.  viii. 

hypostases  with  that  of  the  consubstantiality,  and  thus 
anticipated  the  system  of  the  future,  had  at  their  head  two 
laymen,  highly  distinguished  for  their  knowledge  and  their 
eloquence,  Diodore  and  Flavian.  They  also  adhered  to 
the  Creed  of  Nicaea ;  but,  since  the  official  Church  did  not 
actually  repudiate  it  in  terms,  they  did  not  consider  them- 
selves justified  in  separating  themselves  from  that  body, 
and  continued  in  communion  with  the  successors  of 
Eustathius.  Nevertheless,  when  they  heard  certain 
preachers  endeavouring  to  reproduce  the  heretical 
opinions  of  Arius,  they  did  not  conceal  their  displeasure. 
Moreover,  in  addition  to  the  usual  offices  of  the  Great 
Church,  they  had  others  which  they  celebrated  among 
themselves.  They  gathered  themselves  together  (apart 
from  the  official  meetings  for  service — mass  and  vigil)  in 
the  cemeteries  on  the  outskirts  of  the  city,  near  the 
tombs  of  the  martyrs,  and  spent  long  hours  in  chanting 
psalms  antiphonally.  These  chants,  in  which,  thanks  to 
the  use  of  refrains  easily  remembered,  everyone  could 
take  part,  met  with  very  great  success.  The  populace  of 
Antioch  flocked  eagerly  to  these  new  psalm-singings. 
Leontius,  disturbed  at  this  rivalry,  summoned  Flavian 
and  Diodore  before  him,  and  persuaded  them  to  transfer 
their  offices  to  the  churches  of  the  city.  They  accepted 
his  offer,  but  the  bishop  was  obliged  on  his  side  to  make 
several  concessions. 

Leontius  had  had  for  some  time  among  those  about 
him  a  kind  of  Christian  sophist,  named  Aetius,  whose  past 
adventures  and  present  attitude  were  not  at  all  reassuring 
to  the  orthodox.  Born  at  Antioch  or  in  its  neighbour- 
hood, he  had  pursued  many  occupations,  being,  by  turns,  a 
coppersmith,  a  goldsmith,  a  servant,  and  a  physician. 
Between  times,  and  here  he  showed  himself  a  true  Greek, 
he  had  cultivated  his  mind,  and  learnt  dialectic  and 
theology.  In  this  latter  study,  his  views  were  formed  by 
certain  survivors  of  the  Lucianic  school,  who  were  growing 
old  in  the  bishoprics  of  Cilicia,  or  amongst  the  clergy  of 
Antioch.  His  mind  was  a  subtle  one,  capable  of  the 
finest   hair-splitting,  and   of  arguing   for  days   together. 


p.  275]  AETIUS  AND  JULIAN  221 

In  this  exercise  he  was  at  first  beaten  b}-  a  Borborian, 
a  member  of  one  of  the  obsolete  Gnostic  sects  (there  were 
still  a  few  of  them  remaining).  But  he  took  his  revenge, 
at  Alexandria,  upon  a  celebrated  Manichean,  a  certain 
Aphthonius,  whom  he  put  so  shamefully  to  silence  that 
his  opponent  died  of  chagrin  at  his  defeat.  Aetius 
profited  by  his  stay  in  Alexandria  to  perfect  himself  in 
the  philosophy  of  Aristotle,  and,  on  his  return  to  Antioch, 
he  did  not  shrink  from  attacking  Basil,  the  Bishop  of 
Ancyra,  who  had  just  covered  himself  with  glory  in  a 
successful  dispute  with  Photinus.  This  time,  Basil  himself 
was  beaten ;  and  Aetius  quickly  acquired  the  reputation 
of  being  invincible.  To  avenge  his  defeat,  Basil  tried  to 
ruin  him  with  the  Csesar  Gallus ;  but  Bishop  Leontius 
intervened,  and  Gallus,  instead  of  causing  his  legs  to  be 
broken,  as  he  had  threatened,  admitted  the  doctor  to  his 
friendship ;  he  even  entrusted  him  with  the  honourable 
task  of  completing  the  religious  education  of  his  brother 
Julian,  who  was  beginning  to  be  a  cause  of  anxiety.^ 

Julian  was  in  good  hands !  We  have  already  seen  him 
borrowing  books  from  George  of  Alexandria.  Aetius  was 
in  a  position  to  initiate  him  into  Arianism  of  the  purest 
and,  one  may  add,  the  most  arid  type ;  for  his  speciality 
was  to  present  heresy  in  syllogisms.  We  can  form  an 
idea  of  his  method  from  a  little  treatise,-  divided  into 
short  sections,  in  which  he  defends  his  opinions.  It 
begins  as  follows  : — 

"  If  it  is  possible  for  the  Un-begotten  God  to  make 
the  begotten  become  un-begotten,  both  substances  being 
un-begotten,  they  will  not  differ  from  each  other  as  to 
independence.  Why,  then,  should  we  say  that  the  one  is 
changed,  and  the  other  changes  it,  when  we  will  not  allow 
that  God  produces  (the  Word)  from  nothing  ?  " 

This  canticle  contains  no  fewer  than  forty-seven 
couplets,  all  equally  dry,  all  equally  devoid  of  any  religi- 
ous meaning.  Aetius,  so  we  gather  from  St  Epiphanius, 
had  composed  more  than  three  hundred  of  them.  Such 
eloquence    must   have   given   his  ordinary   listeners   very 

'  Philostorgius,  iii.  27.  -'  Epiph.  Haer.  Ixxvi.  Ii. 


222  THE  DEFEAT  OF  ORTHODOXY       [ch.  viil 

severe  headaches ;  it  was  little  suited  to  draw  Julian  away 
from  the  mysteries  of  Eleusis  and  the  worship  of  Apollo. 

The  doctor  returned  to  Antioch,  where  the  easy-going 
Leontius  at  length  promoted  him  to  the  diaconate,  which 
gave  him  the  right  of  preaching  in  church.  The  orthodox 
party  protested.  It  was  not  the  first  time  that  they  had 
had  imposed  upon  them  clerics  of  a  doubtful  past 
and  advanced  opinions ;  it  was  even  traditional  that 
no  priest,  no  deacon,  should  be  chosen  from  their 
ranks.  But  the  clergy,  thus  badly  recruited  as  they  were, 
had  still  address  enough  to  avoid  dogmatic  scandals. 
Aetius  was  not  only  a  notorious,  a  professed,  a  militant 
Arian  :  he  was  known  to  be  inflexible  in  his  obstinacy ; 
at  every  opportunity  he  was  heard  to  protest  against 
accommodations  and  those  who  made  use  of  them.  The 
bishop  recognized  that  he  had  gone  too  far ;  Aetius  was 
removed,  and  transferred  himself  to  Alexandria,  to  the 
society  of  the  intruder  George,  to  whom  he  became,  for 
several  months,  one  of  his  most  energetic  advisers. 

The  affairs  of  his  party  did  not  suffer  very  much  from 
his  absence.  Besides,  he  was  not  the  only  Anomoean 
celebrity  to  be  met  with  at  Antioch.  There  was  living  there 
a  curious  individual,  one  Theophilus  the  Indian,  as  his 
friends  called  him,  Blemmyas  as  other  people  styled  him. 
He  came  from  a  distant  island,  called  Dibous,  from  which 
he  had  been  sent  as  a  hostage  in  the  reign  of  the 
Emperor  Constantine.  He  was  then  quite  young. 
Eusebius  of  Nicomedia  had  taken  charge  of  his  educa- 
tion, had  initiated  him  in  the  purest  Arian  theology,  and 
had  raised  him  to  the  diaconate.  He  led  the  life  of  an 
ascetic,  and  among  his  acquaintances  passed  for  a  saint. 
His  complexion,  which  was  very  dark,  drew  people's 
attention  to  him  and  made  him  popular.  Long,  long 
after,  even  in  Theodosius'  reign,  he  enjoyed  an  extra- 
ordinary reputation  among  the  Arians.  In  the  time  of 
Bishop  Leontius,  he  was  in  high  favour  at  court  with  the 
Caesar  Gallus  ;  Aetius  profited  greatly  from  his  protection. 
When  Gallus  fell  into  disgrace,  Theophilus,  whom  he 
treated  as  a  sort  of  domestic  saint,  followed  him  to  the 


p.  278]  LEONTIUS  OF  ANTIOCH  223 

West,  and  undertook  his  defence  before  Constantius, 
whereby  he  earned  a  sentence  of  exile  for  himself.  But 
the  Empress  Eusebia  falling  ill,  it  was  necessary  to  recall 
the  holy  man  ;  the  empress  got  better,  and  Theophilus  was 
sent  on  a  mission  to  the  king  of  the  Homerites  (Yemen), 
and  the  king  of  the  Axoumites  (Abyssinia) ;  on  this 
occasion  he  was  consecrated  bishop  (about  the  year  356). 

The  further  he  went,  the  stronger  became  his  Arianism 
and  his  obstinacy.  He  would  never  have  approved  of  the 
half-and-half  terms  to  which  people  resigned  themselves 
at  the  bishop's  palace  at  Antioch.^ 

Poor  Leontius  was  greatly  embarrassed  by  all  these 
disputes.  While  looking  after  the  affairs  of  his  own  party, 
he  tried  not  to  exasperate  his  opponents  too  far :  the 
government  was  anxious  that  quiet  should  be  maintained 
in  the  Churches.  In  the  Divine  Office,  when  the  time 
came  to  recite  the  Doxology,  the  orthodox  said,  as  they 
do  to-day  :  "  Glory  be  to  the  Father,  and  to  the  Son,  and 
to  the  Holy  Ghost " ;  the  others :  "  Glory  be  to  the 
Father,  tJirongJi  the  Son,  in  the  Holy  Ghost."  The  bishop, 
closely  watched  by  both  sides,  began  by  saying :  "  Glory 
be  to  the  Father"  in  a  loud  and  intelligible  voice;  then 
he  coughed  or  lost  his  voice  for  a  moment,  not  recovering 
it  till  the  conclusion  :  "  world  without  end."  This  anecdote 
is  a  delightful  illustration  of  the  position  of  affairs. 

But  "the  snow  was  going  to  melt,  and  the  mud  to 
appear."  Bishop  Leontius  died  towards  the  end  of  the 
year  357. 

For  some  two  years,  the  Church  had  been  passing 
through  a  singular  crisis.  Orthodoxy,  as  represented  by 
the  Council  of  Nicjea,  was  everywhere  dominant,  in  the 
sense  that  no  bishop  dared  openly  to  confess  himself 
hostile  to  that  holy  assembly  ;  it  was  everywhere  abolished, 
in  the  sense  that  no  bishop  in  possession  of  his  see  dared 
to  defend  the  creed  which  it  had  put  forth.  The  tactics  of 
the  aged  Eusebius  of  Nicomedia  had  completely  succeeded. 

1  Upon  Theophilus,  see  Greg.  Nyss.  Ad Eunom.  (Migne,  P.  G., 
vol.  xlv.,  p.  264  ;  Philostorgius,  iii.  4-6  ;  iv.  i,  7,  8  ;  v.  4  ;  vii.  6  ;  viii. 
2  ;  ix.  I,  3,  18, 


224  THE  DEFEAT  OF  ORTHODOXY       [ch.  viii. 

Pronounce  an  anathema  upon  the  council !  Who 
would  ever  have  thought  of  such  a  thing  ?  The  memory 
of  Constantine  forbade  it.  Besides,  did  it  not  bear  the 
signature  both  of  Eusebius  himself,  of  his  namesake  of 
Caesarea,  of  Theognis,  of  Maris,  of  Narcissus,  of  Patro- 
philus,  and  the  rest  ?  All  the  great  men  of  the  Arian  party 
figured  in  the  number  of  the  three  hundred  and  eighteen 
Fathers.  But  Arianism,  banished  from  the  front  door, 
could  re-enter  by  the  back,  under  the  cloke  of  a  prudent 
silence.  This  plan  was  adopted.  Such  dissimulations 
belong  to  all  times  and  to  all  parties. 

Prudence,  for  all  that,  is  a  virtue  which  is  practised 
willingly  enough  during  the  time  of  conflict,  but  which 
is  generally  discarded,  once  success  has  been  attained. 
When  there  were  no  longer  Consubstantialists  save  in 
places  of  exile,  people  began  to  feel  less  acutely  the  need 
for  remaining  united.  Up  to  that  time,  the  battle  had 
been  rather  for  canon  law  than  for  theology.  The  Council 
of  Nicaea  was  all  very  well ;  but  there  was  also  the  Council 
of  Tyre  to  be  considered.  As  to  Arius  and  his  adherents, 
condemned  at  Nicaea,  there  had  come  to  pass  that  which 
had  pleased  God  and  the  Emperor  Constantine.  They 
had  offered  explanations ;  these  had  been  accepted  ;  this 
account  was  closed.  But  the  Council  of  Tyre  had 
condemned  Athanasius,  and  even  if  he  had  succeeded  in 
securing  his  vindication  by  the  bishops, of  Egypt,  who  were 
suspect,  and  by  the  Westerns,  who  were  ill-informed  and 
incompetent,  the  Easterns  had  never  relaxed  the  severity 
of  the  decisions  which  they  had  themselves  given  against 
him.  Such  was  the  essence  of  the  position.  When 
Athanasius  sought  to  compromise  the  Eastern  bishops  by 
.speaking  of  their  Arian  sympathies,  there  was  produced, 
not  exactly  the  Creed  of  Nicaea,  but  a  Creed  of  Antioch, 
more  vague,  it  is  true,  and  not  admitting  the  much- 
disputed  term  homoousios,  but  orthodox  in  itself,  and 
having  the  advantage  of  being  acceptable  to  almost 
everyone. 

There  remained,  of  course,  the  question  of  communion. 
At  Sardica  both  parties  had  excommunicated  each  other. 


p.  280-81]  YIELDING  OF  LIBERIUS  225 

But  in  the  course  of  fifteen  years  many  of  the  persons 
specifically  condemned  had  disappeared.  Julius  of  Rome 
was  dead ;  so  also  were  Theodore  of  Heraclea,  Maximin 
of  Treves,  and  no  doubt  several  others  also.  Stephen, 
the  Bishop  of  Antioch,  had  been  deposed  ;  the  Westerns 
repudiated  Photinus.  Moreover,  at  the  Councils  of  Aries 
(353)  3-nd  of  Milan  (355),  the  two  episcopates  had  frater- 
nized. One  after  the  other  the  recalcitrants  were  yielding. 
Heremiusof  Thessalonicahad  signed  the  Eastern  formula  ; 
Fortunatian  of  Aquileia  likewise,  notwithstanding  the 
trust  placed  in  him  by  Pope  Liberius.  He  had  even 
given  Liberius  counsels  of  accommodation — counsels  which 
bore  fruit.  Once  at  Berea,  in  the  heart  of  Thrace,  the 
good  Pope  ended  by  feeling  himself  very  far  from  Rome, 
from  his  people,  from  the  senators  who  loved  him,  the 
matrons  who  received  him  with  so  much  respect,  and 
the  churches  where  he  was  wont  to  deliver  moving  dis- 
courses. His  keeper.  Bishop  Demophilus,  also  set  him- 
self to  work  upon  Liberius.  At  the  end  of  two  years, 
his  resistance  was  overcome.  He  did  not  abandon 
the  Council  of  Nicaea.  He  signed,  perhaps,  a  formula ; 
but,  at  the  time  at  which  we  have  arrived,  the  formulas 
which  the  Easterns  were  accustomed  to  tender  to  the 
Westerns  contained  nothing  contrary  to  the  faith ;  the 
only  objection  that  could  be  made  to  them  was  that  they 
were  not  sufficiently  precise.^ 

'  The  document  upon  which  is  based  the  admission  that  Liberius 
did  sign  a  formula  (see,  however,  the  texts  quoted  in  the  following 
note),  is  one  of  the  three  letters  preserved  in  the  Fragments  of  St 
Hilary  (vi.  5-1 1).  These  letters  must  have  been  written  at  Berea  by 
the  exiled  Pope,  to  hasten  his  recall  to  Rome  ;  they  are  addressed  to 
the  Eastern  Bishops,  to  Ursacius,  Valens,  and  Germinius,  and  finally 
to  Vincent  of  Capua.  Liberius  reviews  in  them  the  concessions  he 
had  made,  his  repudiationof  Athanasius,  his  entering  into  communion 
with  the  Eastern  Churches,  and  the  approval  given  to  their  formulary. 
In  the  Fragments  of  St  Hilary  these  documents  are  accompanied 
by  a  narrative  which  condemns  them  severely  ;  there  are  even  here 
and  there  very  harsh  notes  upon  the  most  reprehensible  passages. 
The  author  of  text  and  notes  evidently  considered  the  letters  to  be 
authentic.  He  identified  the  formula  signed  by  Liberius  with  one 
of  the  professions  of  faith  previously  produced  by  the  Easterns.  To 
II  P 


226  THE  DEFEAT  OF  ORTHODOXY       [ch.  viii. 

A  matter  which  seems  of  graver  character  is  the  fact 
that  he  repudiated  communion  with  Athanasius,  and 
allied  himself  with  that  of  the  Easterns — people  of  every 
shade  of  opinion,  we  must  confess,  among  whom  were 
to  be  met,  side  by  side  with  Ursacius  and  Valens,  others 
like  Basil  of  Ancyra  and  Cyril  of  Jerusalem,  whose  ideas 
were  much  less  advanced. 

This  proceeding  of  Liberius  involved  the  re-establish- 
ment of  relations  with  the  advocates  of  prudent  silence. 
It  meant  the  abandonment  of  the  position  which  the 
Pope  had  maintained  hitherto  with  most  signal  distinction 
— a  position  for  which  he  had  braved  the  anger  of  the 
emperor  and  the  sorrows  of  exile.  It  was  a  weakening, 
a  downfall.^ 

judge  from  the  signatures  which  it  bore  and  which  the  writer  enumer- 
ates, it  can  scarcely  be  different  from  the  formula  put  forth  at 
Sirmium  in  351.  In  any  case,  neither  these  signatures  nor  the  date 
of  the  Pope's  weakening  allow  us  to  believe  that  the  formula  sub- 
scribed by  him  could  have  been  the  one  which  Hosius  signed  during 
the  summer  of  357.  When  it  was  drawn  up,  the  Easterns  were  still 
united,  and  their  official  creed  was  the  fourth  formula  of  Antioch. 
{Vide  supra,  p.  170.)  It  is  surprising  that  St  Hilary,  elsewhere  so 
well  disposed  to  this  formula  (see  p.  234),  here  treats  it  with  such 
severity,  and  without  any  qualification  or  restriction  includes  among 
the  heretics,  Basil  of  Ancyra,  one  of  its  signatories.  Thus  we  may 
ask  ourselves  if  it  is  really  St  Hilary  who  is  speaking  in  this  passage. 
It  might  possibly  be  that  this  portion  of  the  historical  Fragments 
has  been  interpolated  by  some  Luciferian.  M.  L.  Saltet  has  put 
forward  reasons  for  believing  in  such  an  interpolation  {Bulletin  de 
litter,  eccle's.  1905,  p.  222  et  seq.).  In  that  case,  the  letters  would 
come  to  us  from  people  to  whom  Liberius  was  specially  hateful.  But 
this  would  not  prevent  them  being  authentic  ;  we  do  not  expect  that 
such  documents  would  have  been  published  by  Liberius  or  his  friends. 
1  Not  to  speak  of  the  Fragments  of  St  Hilary,  mentioned  in  the 
preceding  note  (cf  in  Const.  11),  the  weakening  of  Liberius  is 
attested  by  St  Athanasius  {Apol.  contra  Ar.  89),  a  passage  added 
as  a  supplement,  and  Hist.  Ar.  41.  St  Jerome,  in  his  Chronicle.,  does 
not  hesitate  to  speak  of  a  formula  signed  :  in  haereticam  pravitatem 
subscribens.  The  same  is  true  of  the  Roman  author  of  the  preface  to 
the  Libellus  precuin  :  "  manus  perfidiae  dederat."  From  this  docu- 
ment, and  from  St  Athanasius,  we  learn  that  the  Pope's  action  took 
place  at  the  beginning  of  357,  about  two  years  after  his  departure 
for  exile. 


p.  283]  HOSIUS  AND  THE  ARIANS  227 

The  Emperor  Constantius  already  knew  of  it  when 
he  came  to  Rome  in  May  357.  A  very  short  time  after- 
wards, either  in  the  summer  or  the  autumn,  the  prince's 
visit  to  Sirmium  was  taken  advantage  of  by  the  three 
doughty  leaders  of  the  Arian  party  in  those  parts, 
Ursacius,  Valens,  and  Germinius,  to  aim  a  decisive  blow 
at  the  Creed  of  Nic^a.  Such  an  attempt  had  already 
been  made  at  Milan,  two  years  before ;  there  had  been 
produced,  in  the  guise  of  an  imperial  edict,  a  theological 
statement  so  clearly  heterodox  that  the  people  had 
perceived  the  heresy,  and  their  protests  had  caused  the 
failure  of  the  attempt.^  This  time  it  took  the  form  of 
an  episcopal  declaration,  which,  emanating  from  the 
bishops  then  at  court,  should  afterwards  be  presented, 
in  every  province,  for  the  acceptance  of  their  colleagues. 
And — a  thing  scarcely  to  be  believed — they  selected  as 
the  person  to  "  launch "  this  anti-Nicene  document,  a 
document  in  which  the  honioousios  was  demolished,  none 
other  than  the  great  man  of  the  Council  of  Nicaea,  the 
inventor,  if  we  may  be  permitted  the  expression,  of  the 
houioousios — the  aged  patriarch,  Hosius  of  Cordova. 
Assisted  by  the  Bishop  of  Lisbon,  Potamius,  apparently 
reconciled  to  him,-  by  Germinius  of  Sirmium,  and  the 
inevitable  Ursacius  and  Valens,  Hosius  appended,  at 
the  end  of  this  impious  declaration,  the  same  signature 
that  had  headed  those  of  the  three  hundred  and  eighteen 
Fathers  of  the  Council  of  Nica:;a.  It  is  evident  that  an 
unfair  advantage  had  been  taken  of  his  great  age  and 
of  the  enfeeblement  of  his  faculties,  and  that  personally 
he  was  hardly  a  responsible  agent  in  this  sad  story.^ 
This  is  all  the  more  probable  because — a  touching  detail  — 
no  one  could  ever  succeed  in  making  him  anathematize 
Athanasius.     His   poor    brain    grew   confused,  no   doubt, 

'  Sulpicius  Severus,  Chron.  ii.  39.  Sulpicius  here  seems  to  be 
relying  upon  a  lost  passage  of  the  Fragments  of  St  Hilary. 

"  Supra,  p.  210. 

**  Athanasius  speaks  of  acts  of  physical  violence  used  to  the  old 
man.  He  says  also  that  he  protested  at  the  moment  of  death 
{Apol.  contra  Ar.  89,  an  appendix  added  subsequently,  when  the 
work  was  already  published  ;  HisL  Ar.  45). 


228  THE  DEFEAT  OF  ORTHODOXY     [ch.  viii. 

by  theological  questions  ;  but  Athanasius  remained  for 
him  a  concrete  personality,  a  friend,  a  companion  in 
conflict ;  he  clung  to  that,  and  they  could  not  make  him 
relax  his  hold. 

The  document  in  question^  was  not  a  confession 
of  faith,  but  a  simple  theological  declaration.  "  Some 
dissension  having  arisen  in  regard  to  the  Faith,  all  the 
questions  have  been  carefully  considered  and  discussed,  at 
Sirmium,  in  the  presence  of  the  holy  bishops,  our  brethren, 
Valens,  Ursacius,  and  Germinius.  We  believe  that  there 
is  but  One  God,  etc."  The  idea  of  the  existence  of  two 
gods  is  set  aside,  and  the  terms  "substance"  and  "essence" 
are  repudiated ;  there  must  no  longer  be  a  question  either 
of  homoousios  or  hoino'iousios,  expressions  which  are  not 
in  Scripture,  and  which,  besides,  presume  to  express  in 
words  relations  which  are  inexpressible.  The  Father  is 
greater  than  the  Son ;  His  attributes  are  described  as 
those  of  the  One  Only  God,  while  the  Son  is  always  placed 
below  Him. 

This  document  is,  in  episcopal  language,  a  sufficiently 
clear  expression  of  the  doctrine  which  Arius  had  taught 
in  bygone  days,  and  which  Aetius  at  Antioch  was  engaged 
in  translating  into  syllogisms.  At  the  period  of  which  we 
are  now  speaking,  attention  was  directed  towards  the  idea 
of  resemblance.  In  the  time  of  Arius,  they  preferred 
rather  to  say  that  the  Word  was  not  eternal,  that  He  was 
a  creature;  now  stress  was  laid  on  the  point  that  He  did 
not  resemble  the  Father ;  He  was  unlike  Him  {avofxoioi) 
from  whence  was  derived  the  name  of  Anomoeans  applied 
to  the  new  Arians.  Ranged  against  them,  in  the  Christian 
world  of  the  East,  besides  the  general  tone  of  feeling, 
which  was  little  favourable  to  any  one  who  attacked  the 
absolute  Divinity  of  Christ,  were  theological  opponents, 
strong  in  numbers  and  of  high  authority.  They  rallied 
round   the   word  homoiousios,  "  like   in    essence,"   a   term 

1  The  original  Latin  text  is  in  Hilary  {De  syn.  ii):  the  Greek 
in  Athan.  De  syn.  28.  This  is  what  is  often  called  the  second  formula 
of  Sirmium  ;  the  first  being  represented  by  the  profession  of  faith  of 
the  synod  of  351. 


p.  285 -G]      noMoorsios,  homoiousios  229 

sometimes  employed  by  Alexander  and  Athanasius,  and 
one  which,  if  it  differed  slightly  from  the  Nicene  hovioousios, 
embodied  almost,  granted  the  circumstances  in  which  it 
was  employed,  the  same  connotation.  Those  who  made 
use  of  it  through  preference,  and  through  fear  of  the 
Sabellian  meaning  of  which  the  homootisios  remained 
susceptible,  had  been  at  first  confused  with  the  Arians ; 
several  among  them,  including  the  most  distinguished,  had 
been  waging  war  for  thirty  years  against  Athanasius,  in 
the  ranks  of  the  "  Easterns."  But  this  personal  hostility, 
which  drew  upon  them,  from  the  orthodox  party,  rather 
more  hard  knocks  than  they  deserved  for  it,  must  not 
prejudice  us  with  regard  to  their  theology.  People  who 
declared  that  the  Son  was,  in  essence,  like  to  the  Father, 
and  who  meant  to  be  and  to  remain  Monotheists,  found 
themselves,  when  everything  is  considered,  at  the  same 
point  as  those  who  proclaimed  the  identity  of  essence 
between  the  Father  and  the  Son,  while  maintaining  at  the 
same  time  the  distinction  of  one  from  the  other.  Ursacius 
and  Valens  knew  perfectly  well  what  they  were  doing 
when  they  clamoured  for  the  repudiation  of  the  homoiousios 
as  well  as  the  homootisios.  As  a  protest  against  Arianism, 
the  two  terms  were  of  equal  weight. 

The  astute  impudence  which  made  Hosius  appear  to 
support  an  Arian  interpretation  of  the  Creed  of  Nicaea  had 
only  a  small  success.  In  Gaul  and  Britain  it  provoked  a 
very  lively  revulsion.  In  these  countries,  where  the 
theology  of  the  Emperor  Constantius  did  not  find  a  very 
enthusiastic  upholder  in  Julian,  the  bishops  had  a  certain 
latitude  to  say  what  they  thought.  Ever  since  the 
occurrences  at  Aries  and  Milan,  they  had  a  bitter  grudge 
against  Saturninus  of  Aries,  the  courtier  who  was  respons- 
ible for  the  disgrace  which  had  befallen  several  of  their 
colleagues  ;  they  maintained  no  semblance  of  communion 
with  him.  When  the  declaration  of  Sirmium  reached 
them,  one  of  their  number,  Phoebadius  of  Agen,  published 
a  criticism  of  it,^  of  considerable  vigour,  undeterred  by  the 
recommendation  which  the  signature  of  Hosius  seemed  to 
'  Migne.  P.  Z,.,  vol.  xx.  pp.  13-30. 


230  THE  DEFEAT  OF  ORTHODOXY     [cii.  viii. 

give  it.  He  and  his  colleagues  came  to  an  agreement, 
either  in  council  or  otherwise,  to  repudiate  it.  They 
communicated  their  decision  to  Hilary,  the  exiled  Bishop 
of  Poitiers,  who,  from  his  prison  in  Phrygia,  was  anxiously 
watching  all  these  events.^  The  African  bishops,  also, 
protested  in  writing.- 

It  was  just  at  this  moment  that  the  crisis  foreseen  by 
Bishop  Leontius  occurred  in  Syria.  The  see  of  Antioch 
was  aimed  at  by  two  candidates,  Eudoxius,  Bishop  of 
Germanicia,  and  George,  Bishop  of  Laodicea.  Eudoxius 
was  the  first  to  arrive  on  the  scene.  As  soon  as  Leontius 
was  dead,  he  secured  for  himself  the  provisional  adminis- 
tration of  the  vacant  Church,  and  managed  things  so 
well  that  he  was  acclaimed  as  bishop  of  the  see.  He 
installed  himself  without  heeding  the  protests  which  were 
raised  from  Laodicea,  Arethusa,  and  other  neighbouring 
bishoprics.  Eudoxius  was,  from  a  religious  point  of  view, 
a  very  extraordinary  person.  There  are  still  extant 
several  samples  of  his  eloquence,  which  are  of  a  really 
scandalous  character.  St  Hilary  reports^  the  following 
statement  of  his,  which  was  taken  down  in  shorthand,  and 
presented  to  the  Council  of  Seleucia :  "  God  was  what  He 
is.  He  was  not  Father,  for  He  had  not  a  Son.  To  have 
had  a  son.  He  must  have  had  a  wife.  .  .  ."'^  His  opinions 
had  undergone  some  fluctuation  :  a  homoi'ousian  for  one 
moment,  he  had  allowed  himself  to  be  led  back  to  the 
pure   Arian  doctrine,^  which  he  knew  how  to  dissemble 

1  We  see,  from  the  title  of  Hilary's  reply  {De  syn.  i),  that,  with  the 
exception  of  the  district  of  the  Rhone,  of  Vienne,  and  of  Narbonne,  the 
whole  episcopate  of  Gaul  was  on  the  orthodox  side.  Toulouse  had 
remained  faithful  to  Rhodanius  in  exile,  as  Poitiers  had  to  Hilary. 

-  Hil.  Adv.  Const.  26.  It  was  Basil  of  Ancyra  who  had  provoked 
this  manifesto  (Sozomen,  H.  E.  iv.  24).  ^  Adv.  Const.  13. 

■*  The  rest  cannot  be  translated.  The  Latin  text  of  St  Hilary  is  as 
follows  :  ut  etjeniina  sit,  et  colloqtemm  et  sermocinaiio  et  coniunctio 
coniiigalis  verbi  et  blatidimentutn  et  postre^mim  ad  getterandtim 
naturalis  machinula.     What  bishops  ! 

"  Philostorgius,  iv.  4.  This  historian  tells  us  that  Eudoxius  was 
the  son  of  a  certain  Ceesarius  of  Arabissos,  in  Armenia  Minor,  a  man 
of  profligate  life,  but  one  who,  none  the  less,  ended  by  dying  a  martyr, 
as  we  are  told  in  regard  to  St  Boniface. 


p.  288]  EUDOXIUS  AT  ANTIOCH  231 

when  necessary.  Just  now  there  was  no  occasion  to 
put  a  restraint  upon  himself.  Eudoxius  sent  his  adhesion 
to  the  new  formula  of  Sirmium,  and  for  his  own  part  lost 
no  time  in  promoting  to  ecclesiastical  positions,  not  only 
Aetius  himself,  but  a  great  number  of  his  partisans  or 
disciples.  Among  the  latter  figured  a  certain  Eunomius, 
whom  he  ordained  deacon,  and  who  speedily  became  one 
of  the  pillars  of  the  party.  The  moderates,  on  the  other 
hand,  and  the  orthodox,  were  at  the  same  time  very  badly 
treated.  George  of  Laodicea  undertook  their  defence. 
He  addressed  to  Bishops  Macedonius  of  Constantinople, 
Basil  of  Ancyra,  Cecropius  of  Nicomedia,  and  Eugenius  of 
Nicaea,  a  letter  in  most  urgent  terms,  adjuring  them  to 
come  to  the  assistance  of  the  Church  of  Antioch,  and  by 
an  episcopal  demonstration  as  numerous  as  possible,  to 
force  Eudoxius  to  get  rid  of  Aetius  and  his  gang,^ 

At  this  very  moment  Basil  was  holding  a  council  at 
Ancyra,  on  the  occasion  of  a  dedication  festival.  He  had 
little  need  to  be  exhorted  to  march  against  Aetius  and  his 
champions.  The  sophist  of  Antioch  was  an  old  adversary 
of  his.  A  formulary  was  speedily  drawn  up,  approved  in 
council,  despatched  to  the  bishops  of  the  various  provinces,"^ 
and  finally  conveyed  to  the  court  at  Sirmium  by  Basil 
himself  and  his  colleagues,  Eustathius  of  Sebaste  and 
Eleusius  of  Cyzicus.  It  was  then  the  spring  of  358,  for 
the  council  had  assembled  just  before  Easter.  Basil,  in 
the  presence  of  Constantius,  met  with  an  extraordinary 
success.  The  emperor  had  just  given  his  approval  of  the 
installation  of  Eudoxius  at  Antioch  ;  he  had  even  sent 
letters  to  that  effect  to  his  delegate,  a  priest  named 
Asphalius.  He  allowed  himself  to  be  turned  completely 
round.  Asphalius  was  enjoined  to  return  the  letters  in 
his   possession ;    and   in    their  stead  others  were  sent  to 

'  Sozomen,  iv.  13. 

-  St  Epiphanius,  Haer.  Ixxiii.  2-1 1,  has  preserved  to  us  the  text  of 
the  copy  addressed  to  the  bishops  of  Phoenicia,  and  in  addition,  cc. 
12-22,  that  of  another  letter  on  the  same  subject,  written  in  the  name 
of  Basil  and  George.  St  Hilary  {De  syn.  12-25)  gives  only  part  of  the 
document,  twelve  anathemas,  which  were  detached  from  the  whole, 
and  which  received  special  publicity  at  Sirmium  (cf.  ibid.  90). 


232  THE  DEFEAT  OF  ORTHODOXY     [ch.  viii. 

him,  of  a  tenour  highly  unpleasant  for  Eudoxius,  Aetius, 
and  their  party  :  "  We  did  not  send  Eudoxius  ;  let  no  one 
imagine  such  a  thing.  We  are  very  far  from  wishing  to 
support  people  of  this  kind."  The  emperor  went  on  to 
express  disapproval  of  bishops  who  changed  their  sees, 
and  of  adventurers  like  Aetius,  who  are  bent  upon 
corrupting  the  people  by  their  heresies.  As  for  himself, 
he  had  always  been  a  Jwmo'iousian.  The  people  of  Antioch 
must  remember  the  speeches  he  had  made  to  them  to 
that  effect.  They  must  banish  the  false  doctors  from 
ecclesiastical  assemblies,  and  from  the  ranks  of  the  clergy. 
If  they  persisted,  they  would  see  what  would  happen  to 
them. 

Having  thus  settled  the  affair  in  Antioch,  Basil  busied 
himself  with  the  formula  attributed  to  Hosius.  It  was 
withdrawn  from  circulation.  Until  a  different  one  could 
be  put  forward  by  authority,  two  texts  were  united  which 
had  been  adopted  earlier,  at  Sirmium  (351)  against  Paul 
of  Samosata  and  Photinus  and  at  Antioch  (341)  at  the 
Dedication  Council.^  These  texts  were  orthodox  -  in  the 
main,  except  that  the  hojiioousios  was  passed  over  in 
silence.  Hosius  was  no  longer  there  to  give  them  authority 
by  his  signature  ;  he  had  been  taken  back  to  Spain,  and 
perhaps  was  already  dead.  But  Liberius,  recalled  from 
Berea,  was  still  waiting  at  Sirmium  for  permission  to 
return  to  Rome.  He  was  asked  to  sign  this  third  formula 
of  Sirmium  which  was  identical  really  with  the  first, 
already  accepted  by  him.  He  consented  to  this,  and 
thereby  gave  substantial  support  to  the  reaction,  in  an 
orthodox  direction,  which  was  making  its  appearance 
against  the  Anomoean  intrigue.  He  even  gave  Basil  a 
declaration,  in  which  he  excluded  from  the  Church  anyone 
who  would  not  admit  that  the  Son  is  like  to  the  Father  in 
substance  and    in  everything.     This  declaration  was  not 

'  St  Hilary,  De  syn.  29-60,  reproduces  the  Creed  in  Encaeniis,  the 
text  of  the  (Eastern)  Council  of  Sardica,  and  finally  that  of  351.  The 
last  two  are  identical  with  regard  to  the  affirmative  part  {Credttnus, 
etc.) ;  they  only  differ  in  the  anathemas. 

-  See  the  way  in  which  St  Hilary  {/oc.  cit.)  explains  them. 


p.  290-91]  LIBERIUS  AND  FELIX  233 

unserviceable,  for  Eudoxius  and  his  followers  were 
circulating  the  rumour  that  the  Pope  had  signed  the 
formula  of  Hosius.  It  was  in  these  circumstances  that 
the  emperor  at  last  made  up  his  mind  to  yield  to  the 
incessant  demands  of  the  Romans,  and  to  send  them  back 
their  bishop.  The  prelates  assembled  at  Sirmium  wrote 
to  Felix  and  to  the  clergy  to  receive  Liberius,  and  to 
bury  in  oblivion  all  the  dissensions  caused  by  his  banish- 
ment. Felix  and  Liberius  governed  the  Apostolic  Church 
together. 

The  combination  was  an  extraordinary  one  ;  but  the 
government  was  too  deeply  pledged  to  Felix  to  be  able 
to  oust  him  openly.  It  counted,  no  doubt,  upon  the 
populace  forcing  its  hand  ;  however  this  may  be,  this  was 
what  actually  happened.  The  system  of  having  two 
bishops  at  the  same  time  was  hissed  in  the  Circus.^  As 
soon  as  Liberius  presented  himself,  a  riot  broke  out,  and 
Felix  was  driven  forth  ;  he  retired  to  the  outskirts,  and 
after  an  unsuccessful  attempt  on  the  basilica  of  Julius  in 
Trastevere,  he  made  up  his  mind  to  live  quietly  in  retire- 
ment. The  emperor  shut  his  eyes ;  it  was  the  best 
solution  of  the  difficulty. 

We  must  not  think  that  the  support  given  by  Pope 
Liberius  to  Basil  -  had  been  unfavourably  regarded  in 
orthodox  circles.  Like  him,  the  exiled  Hilary  and  the 
outlawed  Athanasius  applauded  Basil's  effort.  Upon 
the  ground  of  doctrine,  a  reconciliation  was  in  course  of 
being   brought   about ;    confronting    the   strictly    Nicene 

^  Theodoret,  ii,  14. 

^  Basil  of  Ancyra  seems  very  probably  to  have  been  the  author  of 
a  treatise  "  On  Virginity,"  which  forms  part  of  the  apocryphal  writings 
of  St  Basil  of  Caesarea  (Migne,  P.  G.  vol.  xxx.,  p.  669).  It  is  addressed 
to  a  certain  Bishop  Letoios,  evidently  the  same,  according  to  this 
supposition,  as  the  Letoios  who  figures  among  the  signatories  of  the 
synodical  letter  of  Ancyra,  in  358  {supra,  p.  251).  This  Letoios  is 
described  in  the  title  of  the  treatise  as  Bishop  of  Melitene,  and  there 
is  nothing  to  prevent  this  being  so,  although  we  find  another 
bishop  of  that  name,  later  on,  in  the  list  of  bishops  of  Melitene.  See 
the  memoir  of  Cavallera,  "  Le  De  Virginitate  de  Basile  d'Ancyre,"  in 
the  Revue  d'/nsf.  eccl.  (Louvain,  1905),  p.  5  ef  seq. 


234  THE  DEFEAT  OF  ORTHODOXY     [ch.  viii. 

orthodoxy,  there  was  to  be  seen  the  gradual  formation,  in 
the  camp  of  the  enemies  of  Athanasius,  of  an  orthodoxy 
almost  equivalent  to  it.  The  two  parties  must  eventually 
come  to  a  mutual  understanding ;  and,  meantime,  they 
began  to  confer  with  each  other  and  even  to  approve 
of  one  another.  "  Those,"  said  Athanasius  at  this  time,^ 
"who  accept  everything  that  was  written  at  Nicaea, 
although  they  may  still  retain  scruples  about  the  term 
hovioousios,  must  not  be  treated  as  enemies.  I  do  not 
attack  them  as  mad  Arians,  nor  as  adversaries  of  the 
Fathers :  I  discuss  matters  with  them  as  a  brother  with 
brothers,  who  think  as  we  do,  and  only  differ  as  to  one 
word.  .  .  .  Among  their  number  is  Basil  of  Ancyra,  who 
has  written  upon  the  Faith."  As  to  Hilary,  he  was  then 
writing  his  treatise,  "  On  the  Synods  and  the  Faith  of 
the  Easterns,"  addressed  to  the  bishops  of  Gaul  and  of 
Britain,  to  give  them  information  on  the  state  of  contro- 
versies in  the  East.  In  this  he  exhibits  a  very  friendly 
appreciation  of  the  initiative  just  taken  at  Sirmium  by 
Bishops  Basil,  Eustathius,  and  Eleusius ;  he  shows,  by 
reproducing  and  commenting  upon  their  earlier  formulas, 
not  only  that  these  documents  do  not  represent  a 
perversion  of  the  Faith,  but  that  certain  circumstances 
have  justified  their  existence.  He  proves  the  equivalence 
of  the  terms  homoousios  and  komo'iousios,  provided  they  are 
taken  in  the  sense  given  to  them  by  their  respective 
patrons,  the  Council  of  Nicaea,  and  the  friends  of  Basil, 
Addressing  himself  finally  to  the  latter,  he  gently  implores 
them  to  take  one  step  more  ;  since  their  own  technical 
term  is  susceptible  of  the  same  sense  as  that  of  the  Great 
Council,  will  they  not  consent  to  sacrifice  it,  and  accept 
the  formula  of  the  three  hundred  and  eighteen  Fathers? 

While  Hilary  was  writing  this  message  of  peace,  Basil, 
who  was  by  nature  combative,  was  taking  steps  against  the 
Anomoeans.-  He  had  succeeded  in  making  Constantius 
believe  that  Aetius  and  his  followers  had,  in  the  time  of 
Gallus,   been    the    supporters    of    intrigues    against    the 

^  De  syn.  41. 

-  Upon  what  follows,  see  Sozomerij  H.  E.  iv.  16. 


p.  293]  BASIL  OF  ANCYRA  2?.5 

supreme  emperor.^  Constantius  gave  him  the  most 
extensive  powers.  Aetius  was  banished  to  Pepuza,  among 
the  Montanists ;  Theophilus  to  Heraclea  in  Pontus ; 
Eunomius,  arrested  at  Ancyra,  was  imprisoned  at  Midaeon 
in  Phrygia ;  Eudoxius  retired  to  Armenia.  Numerous 
incidents  of  this  kind  were  later  brought  up  against  the 
leader  of  the  Homoiousian  party ;  we  hear  of  more  than 
seventy  sentences  of  exile,  given  at  his  request.  Ursacius 
and  Valens,  in  a  good  position  to  see  which  way  the  wind 
blew,  had  been  among  the  first  to  submit,  and,  like  Pope 
Liberius,  had  signed  Basil's  declarations.  In  short,  for 
some  months  there  was  a  reign  of  terror  in  the  East,  in 
the  interest  of  the  orthodoxy  of  Ancyra  and  of  Laodicea. 

Basil  took  advantage  of  his  favourable  opportunities 
to  secure  the  assembling  of  a  great  CEcumenical  Council, 
which  should  revive  the  work  of  Nicaea  and  bring  peace 
to  the  Church.  The  first  idea  was  to  hold  it  at  Nicaea 
itself;  then  Nicomedia  was  suggested;  but  this  town  was 
destroyed  on  August  24  (358)  by  an  earthquake,  and  the 
church  collapsed  upon  the  head  of  the  Bishop,  Cecropius. 
There  was  no  doubt,  since  the  intervention  of  Hilary,  that 
this  council  would  have  brought  to  Basil  the  support  of  a 
very  large  number  of  Westerns.  Thus  reinforced,  the  right 
wing  of  the  Eastern  episcopate  would  assuredly  have 
prevailed  :  an  understanding  would  have  been  arrived  at, 
in  one  way  or  another,  upon  the  question  of  the  Jiomoousios 
and  the  hoinoioitsios,  and  Arianism  would  have  been  routed. 
This  result  would  have  been  obtained  quite  apart  from 
Athanasius,  ever  proscribed  by  the  government,  assailed 
by  one  section  of  the  episcopate,  and  abandoned  by  the 
other.  But  it  was  written  that  the  brave  warrior  who 
had  borne  the  brunt  of  the  conflict  should  also  share  in  its 
honours.     Basil's  plan  ended  in  a  most  lamentable  failure. 

There  still  remained,  in  the  East,  two  Arian  bishops 
of  the  first  generation,  two  personal  friends  of  Arius,  who 
had  indeed  forsaken  him  at  Nicaea,  but  had  lent  them- 
selves  to  all    the    intrigues  hatched    for   his    restoration : 

^  This  was  probable  enough,  in  view  of  the  relations  of  Theophilus 
and  Aetius  with  the^icsar  of  Antioch,      P'tde  supra,  p.  222. 


236  THE  DEFEAT  OF  ORTHODOXY     [cpi.  vtii. 

these  were  Patrophilus  of  Scythopolis  in  Palestine,  and 
Narcissus  of  Neronias  in  Ciiicia.  These  two  Nestors  were 
sent  as  deputies  to  the  court  of  Constantius,  where  they 
set  themselves  to  represent  Basil  of  Ancyra  as  a  stirrer-up 
of  strife,  which  was  partly  true,  and  to  demand  that,  instead 
of  one  council,  two  should  be  assembled,  one  in  the  East, 
and  the  other  in  the  West.  The  difference  of  languages 
justified  this  course,  and  also  the  consideration  of  the 
great  expense  which  would  be  incurred  by  the  transport- 
ing to  the  East  of  so  many  Latin  bishops.  Their  appeal 
was  listened  to.  The  town  of  Ariminum  (Rimini),  on  the 
Italian  coast  of  the  Adriatic,  was  selected  for  the  Western 
council,  and  that  of  Seleucia  in  Isauria,  near  the  seaboard  of 
Ciiicia,  for  that  of  the  East.  The  Arians  knew,  from  the 
experience  of  past  years,  that  the  Westerns  were  not 
proof  against  weaknesses  and  mystifications ;  in  the 
East  they  felt  pretty  certain  of  obtaining  a  majority,  not, 
of  course,  for  a  crude  and  undisguised  Anomoeanism,  but 
for  one  of  those  non-committal  declarations  which  had 
served  them  so  well  for  the  last  thirty  years. 

Agreeably  to  this,  the  formula  was  prepared  and 
accepted  at  a  meeting  of  the  court  bishops,  shortly 
before  the  time  fixed  for  the  opening  of  the  councils,  to 
both  of  which  it  was  to  be  presented.  It  was  Mark,  the 
Bishop  of  Arethusa,  who  was  appointed  to  draw  it  up. 
We  possess  the  text  of  it  ^ : — 

"  The  Catholic  Faith  has  been  set  forth,  in  the  presence 
of  our  Master,  the  most  pious  and  triumphant  Emperor 
Constantius  Augustus,  eternal  and  venerable,  in  the 
consulate  of  the  most  illustrious  Fl.  Eusebius  and  Fl. 
Hypatius,  at  Sirmium,  the  xi.  of  the  Kalends  of  June 
(May  22,  359). 

"  We  believe  in  One  Only  True  God  .  .  .  and  in  One 
Only  Son  of  God,  Who,  before  all  ages,  before  all  power, 
before  all  conceivable  time,  before  all  imaginable 
substance,  was  begotten  of  God,  without  passion  .  .  .  like 
to  the  Father  who  begat  Him,  according  to  the 
Scriptures.  .  .  . 

'  Athan.  De  syn,  8  ;  the  signatures  are  in  ^iph.  Ixxiii.  22. 


p.  296]  DATED  CREED  OF  SIRMIUM  237 

"  As  to  the  term  Essence  (ova-la)  which  the  Fathers 
have  employed  in  good  faith,  but  which,  being  unknown 
to  the  faithful,  has  been  the  cause  of  scandal  to  them, 
since  the  Scriptures  do  not  contain  it,  it  has  seemed  good 
to  suppress  it,  and  to  avoid  entirely  for  the  future  all 
mention  of  Essence  in  reference  to  God,  the  Scriptures 
never  speaking  of  Essence  in  reference  to  the  Father  and 
the  Son.  But  we  say  that  the  Son  is  like  to  the  Father 
in  all  things,  as  the  Scriptures  say  and  teach  Him  to  be." 

This  formula  no  longer  affirmed,  like  that  of  357,  the 
superiority  of  the  Father  over  the  Son  ;  but,  like  the  former 
creed,  it  repudiated  the  use  of  the  terms  homoousios  and 
homoiousios.  A  serious  blow,  not  only  for  the  old  Nicene 
orthodox  party,  but  also  for  the  neo-orthodox  party,  whose 
triumph  Basil  of  Ancyra  had  brought  about  the  year 
before !  That  prelate's  influence  had  evidently  declined 
in  the  changeable  mind  of  the  Emperor  Constantius. 
However,  the  pure  Arians  had  not  obtained  complete 
success :  this  was  clearly  seen,  when  the  time  for 
signature  came.  Valens  of  Mursa  objected  to  employ 
the  words  Kara  Travra,  "  in  all  things,"  which  seemed 
to  him  to  include  implicitly  the  likeness  in  essence. 
The  emperor  was  obliged  to  insist  on  his  introducing 
these  words  into  his  expression  of  adhesion.  As  to 
Basil,  he  would  willingly  have  spoken  of  likeness 
Kar  ovariav  (in  essence) ;  but  as  this  was  forbidden,  he 
piled  up  synonymous  expressions,  Kara  rtjv  viroarraa-tv 
Kui  Kara  tyjv  vTrap^iv  Ka).  Kara  to  eivai.  The  unhappy 
man  snatched  at  the  branches.  At  bottom,  the  only 
thing  that  mattered  was  his  signature,  and  the  official 
text :  amendments  did  not  count. 

Not  only  was  the  doctrinal  task  for  the  two  councils 
prepared  beforehand  in  this  careful  fashion  :  it  was  also 
decided  ^  that,  when  their  work  was  finished,  each  of  them 
should  appoint  a  deputation  of  ten  members,  and  that 
the  two  deputations  should  meet  in  the  emperor's 
presence  for  the  final  declaration  of  agreement.  Thus 
the  prince  and  his  theological  advisers  were  really 
^  Letter  of  May  27,  Continent priora  (Hil.  Frag.  hist.  vii.  i,  2). 


238  THE  DEFEAT  OF  ORTHODOXY     [ch.  viii. 

the  beginning  and  the  end  of  this  great  consultation. 
The  episcopate  was  shut  in  on  both  sides.  It  was  also 
enacted  that,  with  regard  to  questions  as  to  persons,  each 
of  the  two  councils  should  deal  only  with  its  own  part 
of  the  empire — the  Eastern  prelates  with  Eastern  disputes, 
the  Westerns  with  those  of  the  West. 

The  Council  of  Ariminum  ^  was  the  first  to  open, 
about  the  beginning  of  July  359.  It  was  very  numerously 
attended.  Imperial  agents  had  beaten  up  all  the  provinces, 
and  had  recruited  voluntarily  or  by  force  more  than 
four  hundred  bishops.  The  supporters  of  the  Council  of 
Nicaea  were  in  an  enormous  majority ;  they  took  up 
their  quarters  in  the  church  of  the  city ;  the  others, 
eighty  at  the  most,  in  a  separate  building.  With  them 
were  Ursacius,  Valens,  Germinius,  Auxentius,  Epictetus, 
Saturninus,  etc.  On  the  orthodox  side,  the  most  dis- 
tinguished person  seems  to  have  been  the  Bishop  of 
Carthage,  Restitutus.  The  Roman  Church  was  not  repre- 
sented ;  at  this  moment  the  government  was  recognizing 
two  Popes,  between  whom  it  was  difficult  for  it  to  make  a 
choice.  After  several  fruitless  conferences,  the  two  parties 
in  the  council  decided  to  send  separate  delegates  to  the 
emperor.  The  orthodox  party  entrusted  to  their  repre- 
sentatives a  very  clear  and  firm  protest  -  against  any  idea 
of  touching  the  Creed  of  Nicaea,  and  repudiated  the 
declaration  of  May  22.  Four  bishops,  Ursacius,  Valens, 
Germinius,  and  Gaius,^  who  had  presented  it  to  them, 
had  been  excommunicated  by  them.  Their  opponents, 
on  the  other  hand,  sent  in  their  agreement  with  the 
emperor's  formula.  Constantius  was  then  in  Thrace, 
drawing  slowly  near  the  frontiers  of  Persia,  whither  other 

1  A  narrative  account  is  given  in  Sulpicius  Severus,  Chron.  ii. 
41,  45  ;  cf.  Jerome,  Adv.  Lucif.  17,  18  ;  documents  in  Hil.  Frag.  hist. 
vii.-ix.  ;  cf.  Athan.  De  synodis.  This  book  was  written  in  the 
autumn  of  359,  when  Athanasius  still  knew  nothing  about  the  two 
Councils  of  Ariminum  and  Seleucia,  except  their  orthodox  manifestoes, 
and  was  ignorant  of  the  defections  which  followed  them. 

2  Hil.  Frag.  hist.  viii.  1-3  ;  cf.  vii.  3  et  seq. 

^  St  Athanasius  adds  here  the  names  of  Auxentius  and  Demo- 
philus  {De  syn.  g). 


p.  298-9]  COUNCIL  ()1<  AHIMINUM  239 

affairs  were  calling  him.  He  gave  a  good  reception  to 
the  delegates  of  the  opposition,  and,  on  the  contrary,  put 
oft'  those  of  the  majority.^  The  latter  had  at  their  head 
the  Bishop  of  Carthage ;  neither  he  nor  they  were  equal 
to  the  importance  of  their  mission.  They  were  so 
surrounded  and  lectured  that  they  ended  by  betraying 
their  trust,  and  took  upon  themselves  not  only  to  resume 
communion  with  the  four  deposed  bishops  who  formed 
part  of  the  opposing  deputation,  but  to  rescind,  broadly 
speaking,  everything  done  by  those  who  had  sent  them. 
This  proceeding,  though  strangely  irregular,  was  confirmed 
by  a  protocol  dated  from  a  posting  station  called  Nicsea, 
near  Adrianople,  on  October  lo. 

It  remained  to  secure  its  acceptance  by  the  council 
itself.  The  twenty  delegates  returned  to  Ariminum  in 
a  condition  of  unexpected  unanimity.  Their  example 
soon  caused  many  defections ;  the  meeting  in  the  church 
began  to  grow  thinner,  to  the  benefit  of  the  other  building. 
The  praetorian  prefect  Taurus,  to  whom  was  entrusted 
the  duty  of  looking  after  the  council  and  bringing  it  to  the 
point  the  emperor  wished,  accomplished  his  task  success- 
fully. The  bishops,  penned  up  for  seven  months  in  the 
narrow  limits  of  a  small  town,  where  they  had  nothing 
to  do,  grew  weary,  and  demanded  permission  to  go. 
Taurus  remained  deaf  to  their  appeals.  They  would  be 
allowed  to  go  when  everyone  had  signed.  Also,  his 
orders  were,  not  to  wait  for  absolute  unanimity ;  when 
the  number  of  those  who  refused  to  sign  fell  below 
fifteen,  he  was  to  send  them  into  exile,  and  to  set  the 
others  at  liberty. 

There  was  no  one  left  to  exile.  The  opposition, 
reduced  to  about  twenty,  under  the  leadership  of 
Phoebadius,  Bishop  of  Agen,  and  Servasius  of  Tongres, 
yielded  at  last  to  his  exhortations.  They  were  given 
further  a  sort  of  half-concession,  by  being  allowed,  provided 
they  signed  the  formula,  to  expand  it  in  the  declaration 
of  their  adhesion.     They  took   advantage,  with  more  or 

'  See  the  emperor's  letter  addressed  at  that  time  to  the  council, 
and  the  reply  of  the  latter,  at  the  end  of  the  De  synodis  of  Athanasius. 


240  THE  DEFEAT  OF  ORTHODOXY     [ch.  viii. 

less  cleverness,  of  this  concession ;  but  they  signed  with- 
out exception.  Ten  new  delegates,  chosen  this  time  by 
the  whole  council,  went  to  carry  to  Constantinople,  the 
documentary  proof  of  this  falling  avvay.^ 

In  the  meantime,  the  other  Council  at  Seleucia^  was 
beginning  its  deliberations.  Leonas,  "quaestor  of  the 
sacred  palace,"  like  the  prefect  Taurus  at  Ariminum, 
represented  the  emperor,  and  exercised  official  oversight ; 
the  military  governor^  of  the  province,  the  Dux  Lauricius, 
had  orders  to  assist  him  with  troops  if  necessary.  About 
a  hundred  and  fifty  bishops  were  present,  among  others 
the  two  intruded  primates  of  Alexandria  and  Antioch, 
George  and  Eudoxius ;  Acacius,  the  metropolitan  of 
Palestine,  a  very  influential  person ;  Basil  of  Ancyra, 
Macedonius  of  Constantinople,  Patrophilus,  Cyril  of 
Jerusalem,  Eleusius  of  Cyzicus,  Silvanus  of  Tarsus, 
etc.  Hilary  of  Poitiers  had  also  been  sent  there. 
The  vicariiis  of  the  diocese  of  Asia,  whose  business  it 
was  to  despatch  the  bishops  to  the  council,  had  not  taken 
into  consideration  Hilary's  position  as  an  exile,  and  had 
packed  him  off  with  the  others. 

From  the  very  first  sitting  (September  27),  the  parties 
were  clearly  defined.  After  a  confused  debate  upon  the 
order  of  proceeding,  they  decided  to  begin  with  the 
question  of  faith.  Basil  was  absent  on  this  particular 
day.  He  found  himself  afterwards  among  the  number 
of  persons  in  dispute,  an  accusation  having  been  laid 
against  him.  Furthermore,  he  played  scarcely  any  part 
in  the  council ;  it  was  Eleusius  and  Silvanus  who  directed 
his  party  at  that  time.  Silvanus  proposed  that  no  new 
creed  should  be  accepted,  and  that  they  should  adhere  to 
that  of  Antioch,  which  was  called  the  Dedication  Creed. 
In  this  way  everything  was  set  aside  that  had  been  done 

^  Hil.  Frag.  hist.  ix. 

-  Socrates  gives  {H.  E.  ii.  39,  40)  an  analysis  of  its  Acts  which 
he  had  read  in  the  collection  of  Sabinus.  Sozomen  (iv.  22)  read  them 
subsequently,  and  drew  from  them  several  new  details ;  cf.  Hil. 
Adv.  Const.  12-15. 

^  Isauria,  a  province  thinly  populated,  had  no  civil  governor  ;  it 
was  administered  by  a  dux. 


p.  301]  COUNCII.  OF  SELEUCIA  241 

at  Court  since  Easter  358,  whether  at  Basil's  instigation 
or  that  of  the  Arians.  His  proposition  was  accepted 
by  a  hundred  and  five  votes :  Acacius  then  retired  with 
his  followers ;  they  were  nineteen  in  all.  Apart  from 
these  two  groups,  there  were  some  Egyptian  bishops 
who,  like  Hilary,  adhered  to  the  Council  of  Nicaea ;  but 
in  such  surroundings  they  could  scarcely  have  any 
influence. 

On  the  next  day,  while  the  hundred  and  five,  shut  up 
in  the  church,  proceeded  to  sign  the  formula  of  Antioch, 
the  Acacians,  protesting  strongly  against  this  sitting  in 
camera,  presented  to  the  quaestor  a  declaration  agreeing 
with  that  of  Sirmium,  but  so  far  amended  that  in  it  was 
condemned  the  a^wnioios  no  less  than  the  homoousios  and 
the  homoiousios.  This  document,^  adorned  with  thirty-two 
signatures,  was  discussed  on  the  two  following  days,  by  a 
sitting  of  the  whole  council,  but  nothing  was  decided  ; 
Silvanus,  Eleusius,  and  their  party  remained  inflexible, 
and  refused  to  hear  of  any  other  creed  but  that  of  the 
Dedication.^  Seeing  this,  Leonas  declared  that  he  had 
been  delegated  to  a  unanimous  council,  and  not  to  a 
divided  one.  He  took  leave  of  the  bishops,  saying  to 
them :  "  Now,  go  and  quarrel  with  each  other  in  the 
church."  Following  his  example,  the  Acacians  refused  to 
take  any  part  in  the  subsequent  meetings. 

The  majority,  however,  met  together,  and  discussed 
the  questions  affecting  individuals.  Cyril  of  Jerusalem, 
who  had  been  deposed  two  years  before  by  his  metro- 
politan, Acacius,  had  lodged  an  appeal,  and  the  emperor 
had  referred  his  case  to  the  Council  of  Seleucia  :  he  was 

^  Athan.  De  syn.  29 ;  Epiph.  Haer.  Ixxiii.  25,  26,  with  the 
signatures,  to  the  number  of  43.  The  number  of  the  supporters  of 
Acacius  varies,  as  we  see,  according  to  the  documents. 

^  They  refused  exphcitly  to  endorse  the  formulas  of  358  and  359, 
i.e.,  those  of  Basil  and  that  of  Mark.  "  If  Basil  and  Mark,"  says 
Eleusius,  "have  done  anything  in  their  private  capacity,  if  they  and 
the  Acacians  choose  to  go  on  accusing  each  other  on  one  point  or 
another,  that  is  no  business  of  the  synod  ;  it  has  not  to  examine  if 
their  exposition  of  the  Faith  is  or  is  not  satisfactory."  Sozomen, 
H.  E.  v.  22,  p.  165. 

II  Q 


242  THE  DEFEAT  OF  ORTHODOXY     [ch.  viii. 

restored.  On  the  contrary,  George,  Eudoxius,  Acacius, 
Patrophilus,  and  five  others  were  declared  to  be  deprived 
of  their  episcopal  rank ;  in  the  case  of  nine  others,  the 
council  confined  itself  to  breaking  off  relations  with  them, 
until  they  should  have  satisfactorily  answered  the  accusa- 
tions laid  against  them.  A  bishop  was  even  consecrated 
for  Antioch,  in  place  of  Eudoxius ;  but  the  candidate 
selected  by  the  council,  Annianus,  immediately  he  was 
consecrated,  was  carried  off  by  the  Dux  Lauricius  and 
sent  into  exile. 

Finally,  the  assembly  separated,  after  having  nominated 
its  ten  delegates  to  the  emperor.  The  Acacians,  as  one 
may  imagine,  were  already  on  the  way  to  Constantinople. 

Acacius,  their  leader,  was  a  person  of  no  small  import- 
ance.    Already    mixed    up,   for   many   years,   in    all   the 
theological  intrigues  of  the  Court,  he   now  assumed   the 
principal    part.     He    was    an    intelligent,   eloquent,   and 
persevering   man.     To    his    personal    gifts   was   added    a 
high    ecclesiastical  position.      Metropolitan    of  Palestine, 
successor  of  the  illustrious  Eusebius,  heir  to  the  famous 
library  of  Origen,  he  passed  as  being  himself  also  a  person 
of  great  learning.     His  opinions  at  bottom  differed  very 
little  from  those  of  Arius  and  Aetius  ;  but  he  knew  how 
to  clothe  them  with  an  impressive  and    sparkling   style, 
and  above  all  how  to  disguise  them  under  learned  formulas. 
When  he  arrived  at    Constantinople,  the    first  delegates 
from  Ariminum  had  already  yielded,  and  steps  were  being 
taken    to   deal   with    the   Western   council.     While    this 
operation  was  in  process,  Acacius  conceived  the  idea  of 
bringing  Aetius  to  court,  and  trying  if  it  would  not  be 
possible  to  manage  a  success  for  him,  which  would  have 
greatly  forwarded    the  affairs  of  the  party.     Constantius 
was  favourable  to  his  proposals.     An  Areopagus  of  laymen, 
presided  over  by  Honoratus,  the  prefect  of  Constantinople, 
and  sometimes  by  the  emperor  himself,  listened   to  the 
arguments  of  the  famous  sophist,  who,  on  this  occasion, 
made    but    a    poor    figure,    and    thus   disappointed    the 
expectations  of  his  patrons.     They  then  formed  a  plan  of 
making  a  scapegoat  of  him,  and  of  proving  their  own  good 


p.  303-4]  INDIGNATION  OF  HILARY  243 

intentions  by  the  anathemas  with  which  they  loaded 
him. 

Meanwhile  there  arrived  the  delegates  from  Ariminum. 
Those  of  Seleucia  were  counting  upon  their  support  in  a 
common  resistance ;  they  hastened  to  inform  them  of  the 
plot  which  was  hatching  ^ :  the  person  of  Aetius  was  to  be 
condemned,  but  not  his  doctrine  ;  the  Latins,  they  argued, 
ought  to  abstain,  as  they  themselves  were  going  to  do, 
from  any  ecclesiastical  relations  with  the  supporters  of  the 
intrigue.  The  good  Easterns  were  only  wasting  their 
time.  Guided  by  their  new  leaders,  Ursacius  and  Valens, 
the  delegates  from  Ariminum  at  once  proceeded  to  join 
the  party  of  Acacius. 

Hilary  himself  had  also  come  to  Constantinople.  He 
saw  the  despair  of  the  delegates  from  Seleucia ;  he  saw 
his  fellow-countrymen,  those  Western  bishops,  whose 
orthodoxy  he  had  so  highly  extolled,  betray  it  before 
his  very  eyes,  and  deliver  themselves  over  to  the  court 
party.  He  lost  his  patience,  and  lashed  them  soundly  : 
"  What !  "  he  said,  "  On  arriving  at  Constantinople  after  the 
Council  of  Seleucia,  you  go  at  once  and  join  yourselves  to 
the  heretics,  which  it  has  condemned  !  You  do  not  delay 
a  moment,  you  do  not  take  time  to  deliberate  or  to  gain 
information  !  The  delegates  of  the  Eastern  synod,  who 
hold  no  communion  with  the  bishops  here,  come  in  search 
of  you  ;  they  try  to  put  you  in  possession  of  the  facts,  and 
show  you  that  the  heresy  has  just  been  condemned.  Was 
it  not  the  time  then,  at  any  rate,  to  hold  yourselves  aloof,  to 
reserve  your  judgement?  ...  A  slave,  I  do  not  say  a 
good  slave,  but  an  average  one,  cannot  bear  to  see  his 
master  insulted  :  he  avenges  him,  if  he  can  do  so.  A 
soldier  defends  his  king,  even  at  the  peril  of  his  life,  even 
by  making  for  him  a  shield  of  his  own  body.  A  watch-dog 
barks  at  the  least  scent,  he  flies  out  at  the  first  suspicion. 
But  you — you  hear  it  said  that  Christ,  the  Very  Son  of 
God,  is  not  God ;  your  silence  is  an  adhesion  to  this 
blasphemy,  and  you  hold  your  peace  !     What  am  I  saying  ? 

^  LeUer  in  Hil.  Frag.  hist.  \.  i. 


244  THE  DEFEAT  OF  ORTHODOXY     [cii.  viii. 

You  protest  against  those  who  cry  out,  you  join  your  voices 
with  those  which  wish  to  stifle  theirs."  ^ 

Hilary  did  not  confine  himself  to  this  eloquent  invective. 
He  demanded  an  audience  of  the  emperor,^  he  insisted 
upon  it,  twice,  and  thrice.  He  was  not  heeded.  The 
delegates  from  Seleucia,  who  stood  alone  in  the  breach,  were 
attacked  individually.  They  made  a  long  resistance ; 
they  were  pressed  more  and  more  forcibly.  The  ist  of 
January  was  approaching.  Constantius  wished  to  in- 
augurate his  tenth  consulate  by  the  proclamation  of 
religious  peace.  He  just  managed  to  succeed.  It  was 
not  until  the  night  between  December  31  and  January  i, 
that  the  last  signatures  were  obtained  by  force. 

Nothing  more  remained  to  be  done  but  to  clothe  with 
conciliar  authority  the  decisions  agreed  upon  with  the 
delegates,  and  to  settle  certain  personal  questions.  This 
was  the  task  of  the  Council  of  Constantinople,^  which  was 
held  during  the  first  days  of  January  360,  with  the 
co-operation  of  various  bishops  of  Thrace  and  Bithynia ; 
about  fifty  members  in  all.  Acacius  presided  over  the 
debates.  Among  those  who  were  present  we  may  notice 
the  aged  Maris  of  Chalcedon,  one  of  the  Fathers  of  Nicaea 
and  of  the  protectors  of  Arius,  and  Ulfilas,  the  national 
bishop  of  a  colony  of  Goths  established  on  the  banks  of 
the  Danube,  who  happened  to  be  present  in  the  capital 
just  then  ;  he  too  was  an  Arian,  and  one  of  long  standing. 

The  formula  of  Ariminum  was  approved :  it  declared 
that  the  Son  is  like  to  the  Father,  forbade  the  terms 
"essence"  and  "substance"  (hypostasis),  repudiated  all 
earlier  creeds,  and  condemned  beforehand  all  those  which 
might  be  suggested  subsequently.  It  is  the  official 
formulary  of  what  was  henceforth  known  as  Arianism,  in 
particular  of  that  Arianism  which  spread  itself  among  the 
barbarian  peoples.     The  two  creeds  of  325  and  360,  those 

1  Hil.  Frag.  hist.  x.  2-4,  ^  Ad  Const,  ii. 

3  Upon  this  council,  see  Sozomen,  iv.  24,  who  has  gleaned  from 
official  documents.  Only  one  of  these  has  been  preserved,  a  letter  to 
George  of  Alexandria  upon  the  condemnation  of  Aetius  (Theodoret, 
ii.  24). 


i>.  -.vxq     COUNCIL  OF  CONSTANTINOPLE,  360        245 

of  Nic.ta  and  Ariminum,  are  in  opposition  and  each 
excludes  the  other.  We  cannot,  however,  say  that  the 
Creed  of  Ariminum  contains  an  expHcit  profession  of 
Arianism,  It  does  not  reproduce  any  of  the  technical 
terms  of  the  primitive  heresy  ;  and  as  to  the  new  Arianism, 
— Anomofanism — it  expressly  excludes  it :  it  is  not  the 
avojULoiog,  the  unlike,  which  is  proclaimed,  it  is  the  o/xotof, 
the  like,  its  contrary.  Nevertheless,  the  vagueness  of  the 
formula  allowed  it  to  be  understood  in  the  most  different 
and  even  the  most  directly  opposite  senses ;  with  a  little 
complaisance,  Athanasius  and  Aetius  might  have  repeated 
it  together.  This  is  why  it  was  so  perfidious  and  so 
useless,  and  why  no  Christian  worthy  of  the  name,  holding 
truly  to  the  absolute  Divinity  of  his  Master,  could  hesitate 
for  a  moment  to  condemn  it. 

Aetius  was  deposed  from  the  diaconate,  and  excom- 
municated conditionally,  that  is  to  say,  if  he  persisted  in 
his  opinions,  "  as  having,  in  his  books  and  discussions, 
made  a  display  of  a  philosophy  full  of  quibbles  and  foreign 
to  the  ecclesiastical  mind,  of  having  made  use  of  blasphe- 
mous expressions,  and  so  troubled  the  Church." 

This  sentence,  however,  was  not  universally  approved  : 
about  ten  ^  bishops  who  were  frankly  Anomoean  refused  to 
throw  Jonah  into  the  sea  "^ ;  they  were  given  six  months 
to  make  up  their  minds. 

So  much  for  the  treatment  of  friends.  Now  came  the 
turn  of  the  others  ;  it  was  a  wholesale  slaughter.  Sentence 
of  deposition  was  pronounced  against  Macedonius  of 
Constantinople,  Eleusius  of  Cyzicus,  Heortasius  of  Sardis, 
Dracontius  of  Pergamum,  Basil  of  Ancyra,  Eustathius  of 
Sebaste  in  Armenia,  Sophronius  of  Pompeiopolis  in 
Paphlagonia,  Helpidius    of  Satala,  Neon   of  Seleucia    in 

^  Sozomen,  iv.  25  ;  c/.  Philostorgius,  vii.  6  ;  viii.  4. 

'^  These  were,  first,  Theophilus  the  Indian,  the  wonder-worker  of 
the  party  (Aetius  too,  in  spite  of  his  scholastic  learning,  sometimes 
posed  as  inspired),  next  Seras  of  Paraetonium  in  Libya,  Stephen  of 
Ptolemais,  and  Helidorus  of  Sozousa  in  Cyrenaica  ;  a  Phrygian, 
Theodulus  of  Kcretapa  ;  three  Lydians,  Leontius  of  Tripoli, 
Theodosius  of  Philadelphia,  Phoebus  of  Polycalanda,  and  two 
others. 


246  THE  DEFEAT  OF  ORTHODOXY     [en.  viii 

Isauria,  Silvanus  of  Tarsus,  and  Cyril  of  Jerusalem.  The 
reason  assigned  for  their  condemnation  had  nothing  to  do 
with  doctrine ;  apart  from  the  general  reproach  of  having 
in  the  past  two  years  gravely  troubled  the  peace  of  the 
Church,  each  of  them  was  made  the  object  of  special 
complaints  of  a  disciplinary  character.  Basil,  in  particular, 
found  thrown  at  his  head  all  the  strong  measures  and  undue 
exercise  of  authority,  which  he  had  allowed  himself  during 
the  few  months  he  was  in  favour.^ 

The  government  took  action  in  its  turn.  Aetius  was 
imprisoned  at  Mopsuestia,  and  his  works  were  proscribed. 
Basil  was  despatched  to  Illyria,  the  others  to  different 
places  of  exile.  They  were  provided  with  successors.  For 
Constantinople  choice  was  made  of  Eudoxius,  whom  it 
would  have  been  difficult  to  re-establish  at  Antioch  ;  and, 
without  delay  (on  February  15,  360)  they  proceeded  with 
the  dedication  of  the  great  Church  of  the  Divine  Wisdom 
(St  Sophia),  which  had  been  building  for  the  last  twenty 
years.  The  council  took  part  in  the  ceremony.  Eudoxius 
was  spokesman ;  "  The  Father,"  he  said,  "  is  impious 
(acre^j/9),  the  Son  is  pious  (eJcre/S >;?)."  To  the  murmurs 
which  followed  this  strange  language,  he  replied  by 
explaining  that  the  Son  reverences  the  Father,  while  the 
Father  has  no  one  to  reverence.  This  miserable  quip,  the 
memory  of  which  was  preserved  in  Constantinople,  gives 
us  a  fair  idea  of  the  situation.  We  see  what  kind  of 
priests  were  filling  the  higher  positions  in  the  Church 
of  the  East.- 

Hilary  was  still  in  Constantinople,  overwhelmed  and 
exasperated.     To  give  vent  to  his  anger,  he  set  himself  to 

^  The  details  of  all  this  are  contained  in  Sozomen,  H.  E.  iv.  24, 
who  here  summarizes  the  official  Acts. 

-  Eudoxius,  moreover,  clung  to  this  idea.  We  meet  with  it  again 
in  his  profession  of  faith,  published  by  Caspari,  Alte  unci  neue  Quellen 
zur  Geschichte  des  Tauf symbols  (Christiania,  1879),  p.  179.  We  must 
even  restore  there  the  word  "  impious,"  the  omission  of  which  in 
Caspari's  text  makes  the  passage  incoherent :  [d(Te/3^]  on  /uTideva  aifteiv 
ire<pvKev.  Cf.  Bulletin  critique,  vol.  i.  p.  169.  It  was  undoubtedly  on 
the  occasion  of  his  installation  at  Constantinople  that  Eudoxius  pro- 
duced this  singular  formula. 


p.  308]  THE  rOSITION  IN  THE  EAST  247 

write  his  book  "  Against  Constantius,"  a  terrible  invective, 
which  he  had  the  good  sense  to  keep  to  himself.  He  was 
allowed  to  return  to  the  West 

The  formula  of  Ariminum-Constantinople  was  carried 
from  one  bishopric  to  another,  in  order  that  those  who 
had  not  taken  part  in  the  councils  might  have  an  oppor- 
tunity of  setting  their  signatures  to  it.  In  the  West,  this 
was  scarcely  necessary,  so  numerous  had  the  representa- 
tion of  the  episcopate  been  at  Ariminum.  In  Asia  Minor, 
in  Syria,  and  in  Egypt,  the  case  was  different.  It  was 
then  that  St  Athanasius,  from  the  recesses  of  some  desert, 
addressed  to  the  bishops  of  Egypt  and  of  Libya,  an  urgent 
exhortation  to  remain  true  to  their  duty,  and  to  refuse 
their  signatures.  We  do  not  know  what  was  the  result  of 
this  step.  There  is  small  probability  that  the  official 
agents  could  have  had  much  success  within  the  jurisdiction 
of  Athanasius,  The  clergy  remained  devoted  to  him  ;  in 
Libya,  a  considerable  part  of  the  episcopate  had  passed 
over  to  Anomo^anism  ;  and  they  too  were  hardly  more 
likely  to  sign. 

At  Ca?sarea  in  Cappadocia,  the  aged  Bishop  Dianius, 
who  had  held  the  see  for  twenty  years  and  scarcely 
ever  took  a  prominent  part,  was  accustomed  to  sign  all 
the  official  formulas  ;  he  signed  this  one  too. 

At  Antioch  the  see  was  vacant :  it  was  necessary  to 
elect  a  new  bishop.  The  choice  fell  upon  Meletius,  an 
unattached  bishop.  Meletius  belonged  to  Melitene,  in 
Armenia  Minor.  A  council  held  in  that  city  in  358  had 
deposed  from  the  episcopate  the  Bishop  of  Sebaste, 
Eustathius,  a  man  who  was  prominent  on  account  of 
his  zeal  in  propagating  the  ascetic  life  and  monastic 
institutions.  In  his  youth  he  had  studied  them  in  Egypt. 
It  was  said  that  he  had  been  intimate  with  Arius,  and 
had  imbibed  his  teaching.  However  this  may  be,  it  is 
certain  that  at  the  time  when  the  sentence  of  the  Council 
of  Melitene  struck  him  in  his  episcopal  position,  Eustathius, 
like  Basil  of  Ancyra,  professed  doctrines  closely  approxi- 
mating to  Nicene  orthodoxy.  Meletius,  then  one  of  the 
clergy    of   Melitene,   agreed    to   replace  him.     He  was  a 


248  THE  DEFEAT  OF  ORTHODOXY     [ch.  viii. 

man  in  high  repute  for  his  piety,  his  gentle  affability, 
and  his  uprightness  of  mind.  But  Eustathius  himself 
also  was  very  popular ;  the  people  of  Sebaste  refused 
to  accept  the  successor  whom  it  was  proposed  to  give 
them.  Meletius  had  to  retire;  he  settled  at  Berea  in 
Syria  (Aleppo).  In  the  following  year  (359)  Eustathius 
took  part  in  the  Council  of  Seleucia,  in  the  ranks  of 
the  homoiousian  majority ;  Meletius,  either  at  the 
council^  or  afterwards,  signed  the  Acacian  formula.  He 
was  thus,  at  the  time  when  (in  the  winter  of  360-361) 
the  see  of  Antioch  was  entrusted  to  him,  the  man  of  the 
Council  of  Ariminum  -  Constantinople,  like  Acacius  of 
Caesarea  and  George  of  Alexandria  who  assisted  at  his 
installation.  On  that  occasion  he  pronounced  a  very 
clever  discourse  in  which,  while  adhering  to  the  official 
formulas,  in  that  he  spoke  neither  of  essence  nor  hypostasis, 
he  allowed  it  to  be  seen  that  at  bottom  he  was  not  far 
from  thinking  like  the  Nicenes."  The  latter  did  not 
conceal  their  joy.  The  Arians  understood  ;  and  at  the 
end  of  a  month  they  had  found  means  to  rid  themselves 
of  the  new  bishop.  Without  subjecting  him  to  a  suit 
on  points  of  doctrine,  they  attacked  him  upon  certain 
acts  of  his  administration,  especially  with  regard  to  the 
restoration  of  clergy  ejected  by  his  predecessors.  In 
his  place  they  put  Euzoius,  the  former  companion  of 
Arius,  who  had  been  deprived  of  the  diaconate  forty  years 
before  by  Alexander  of  Alexandria. 

The  Emperor  Constantius  had  returned  to  Antioch, 
and  was  presiding  over  these  changes.  The  victory 
remained  with  him — with  him  and  his  ecclesiastical 
counsellors,  Nicaea  and  Ancyra — Athanasius  and  Basil — 
were  overwhelmed  in  the  same  disaster.  "  The  world 
groaned,"  says  St  Jerome,  "and  was  astonished  to  find 
itself  Arian."  It  was  not  astonished  for  very  long.  The 
yoke  under  which  the  episcopate  bent  itself  was  soon  to  be 
broken.     At  the  end  of  the  previous  winter,  in  April  360, 

^  Socrates  (ii.  44)  expressly  mentions  him. 

^  St   Epiphanius,  who  has  preserved  to  us  this  discourse  {Haer. 
Ixxiii.  29-33),  does  not  find  much  in  it  to  correct. 


p.  311]       JULIAN  PROCLAIMED  EMPEROR  249 

the  finest  troops  in  Gaul  had  been  summoned  by  Con- 
stantius  to  serve  on  the  Persian  frontier.  They  had  been 
assembled  in  Paris.  When  the  time  came  for  them  to 
set  out,  the  soldiers  refused  to  leave  Gaul.  One  evening 
they  left  their  camp/  advanced  towards  the  palace  where 
the  Csesar  was  living,  and  acclaimed  him  Augustus,  in 
spite  of  his  resistance  and  his  protests.  Constantius  had 
ceased  to  reign  in  the  West.  The  high  officials  who 
represented  him  in  the  entourage  of  the  young  Caesar 
withdrew,  and  Julian  wrote  to  his  imperial  cousin  to 
excuse  himself  for  what  had  happened.  Constantius 
was  at  Cffisarea  in  Cappadocia  when  he  received  these 
letters.  The  war  with  the  Persians  occupied  him  during 
this  year  and  for  the  greater  part  of  the  following  one. 
However,  Julian,  Augustus  in  spite  of  himself,  made  up 
his  mind  to  defend  by  force  of  arms  his  enforced  usurpa- 
tion. In  361  he  set  out  on  his  march  towards  the  East. 
Constantius,  free  at  last  to  act,  left  Antioch  to  fight  the 
rival  whom  the  West  was  sending  him.  But  sickness 
stayed  him  at  the  foot  of  the  Taurus.  Euzoius,  the 
official  Bishop  of  Antioch,  was  on  the  spot  to  baptize 
him,  for  this  great  composer  of  theological  formulas  was 
still  only  a  catechumen;  he  died  on  November  3,  361. 
Julian  received  the  news  in  Thrace;  on  December  11 
he  entered  Constantinople :  the  destinies  of  the  whole 
empire  were  placed  within  his  grasp. 

1  Situated  on  the  western  slope  of  the  hill  since  called  Montagne 
Sainte-Genevieve,  under  the  present  Rue  Soufiflot.  As  to  Julian's 
palace,  considerable  ruins  of  it  still  remain. 


CHAPTER  IX 

JULIAN  AND  THE  PAGAN  REACTION 

Paganism  under  the  princes  of  the  house  of  Constantine.  The 
sacrifices  forbidden.  DecHne  of  the  ancient  religions.  JuHan's 
youth.  His  religious  development.  On  becoming  Emperor,  he 
declares  himself  a  Pagan.  Retaliation  of  the  conquered  religion. 
Murder  of  George  of  Alexandria.  Writings  of  Julian  :  his  piety, 
his  attempt  to  reform  Paganism.  His  attitude  towards  the 
Christians.  Recall  of  the  exiled  bishops.  Withdrawal  of 
privileges  :  teaching  prohibited.  Conflicts  and  acts  of  violence. 
Rebuilding  of  the  temple  at  Jerusalem.  Julian  and  the  people 
of  Antioch.     His  death. 

Already,  under  Constantine,  especially  after  he  became 
sole  emperor,  the  State  had  sided  against  paganism. 
However,  no  general  ordinance  had  closed  the  temples  : 
the  State  no  longer  offered  sacrifices  in  them  ;  but,  except 
perhaps  at  the  end  of  his  reign,  private  persons  had 
retained  their  liberty  to  celebrate  them.  This  toleration 
was  not  destined  to  be  long  in  disappearing,  for  the  sons 
of  Constantine  showed  themselves  even  more  determined 
than  their  father  to  have  done  with  the  old  religion.  In 
the  year  341,  Constans  had  addressed  the  following 
rescript  to  the  Vicarms  of  Italy  :  "  Let  superstition  cease  ! 
Let  the  folly  of  the  sacrifices  be  abolished  !  Whoever, 
contrary  to  the  law  of  the  divine  prince,  our  father,  and  this 
present  command  of  our  Clemency  shall  dare  to  celebrate 
sacrifices,  must  be  judged  and  punished."  ^     Other  decrees 


1  " 


Cesset  superstitio,  sacrificiorum  aboleatur  insania.  Nam 
quicumque  contra  legem  divi  principis  parentis  nostri  et  banc  nostrae 
mansuetudinis  iussionem  ausus  fuerit  sacrificia  celebrare,  competens 
in  eum  vindicta  et  praesens  sententia  exeratur."    Cod.  Theod.  xvi,  10,  i. 

250 


p.  314]  THE  POSITION  OF  PAGANISM  251 

repeat  this  prohibition,  specifying  that  the  temples  must 
everywhere  be  closed,  and  the  sacrifices  forbidden,  under 
pain  of  death  and  confiscation.^  Magnentius,  although 
himself  a  Christian,  had  allowed,  as  an  exception,  that 
sacrifices  might  be  celebrated  during  the  night;  but 
Constantius  revoked  this  permission.- 

However,  we  may  notice  that  the  only  act  of  worship 
proscribed  by  this  legislation  is  sacrifice.  But  the  pagan 
religions  comprised  also  many  other  religious  ceremonies, 
and  these  do  not  appear  to  have  fallen  under  the  ban  of 
the  law.  An  imperial  rescript  of  342  ^  expressly  specifies 
that  suburban  temples  connected  with  the  circus  and  other 
games  are  not  to  be  touched ;  it  was  the  superstition  that 
was  attacked,  and  not  the  amusements  of  the  public.  The 
processions,  the  sacred  feasts,  the  mysteries,  and  many 
other  religious  celebrations,  went  on  as  before.  In  Rome, 
the  Taurobolia  were  celebrated  down  to  the  time  of 
Theodosius.  The  initiations  connected  with  Eleusis  were 
practised  in  the  reign  of  Constantius,  and  even  after 
Julian's  death.  At  Antioch,  the  famous  sanctuary  of 
Daphne  was  still  thronged,  and  that  with  purposes  the 
very  reverse  of  austere.  Instead  of  forbidding  it  absolutely, 
as  public  morality  seemed  to  demand,  the  Caesar  Gallus 
confined  himself  to  setting  up  a  rival  to  it.  He  translated 
to  the  sacred  grove  the  remains  of  St  Babylas,  the  martyr 
bishop  ;  henceforth,  respectable  people  might  venture  to 
take  the  road  to  Daphne. 

Moreover,  the  question  for  consideration  here  is  much 
less  the  legislation  than  the  actual  practice.  Of  the 
legislation  we  can  say  at  least  that  the  terrible  threats 
of  the  Emperor  Constantius  did  not  produce,  so  far  as  we 
know,  a  single  victim.  We  never  hear  of  pagan  martyrs. 
Undoubtedly,  there  were  in  many  places  conflicts  between 
the  supporters  of  the  two  cults ;  certain  histories  of 
Christian    martyrs   are    accounts    of  disturbances    on    a 

'  Cod.  Thcod.  xvi.  10,  4  and  6  ;  the  exact  date  of  law  4  is  a  subject 
of  dispute  ;  law  6  belongs  to  356  ;  it  was  promulgated  in  the  name  of 
Constantius  and  Julian. 

■^  Cod.  Thcod.  xvi.  lo,  5,  ot  353.  "  Cod.  Thcod.  xvi.  10,  3. 


252    JULIAN  AND  THE  PAGAN  REACTION  [ch.  ix. 

religious  pretext.  Too  zealous  preachers,  going  to  preach 
the  Gospel  to  rural  populations  little  prepared  to  receive 
it,  are  subjected  to  rough  handling,  and  sometimes 
murdered.  Battles  took  place  around  temples  which 
bodies  of  fanatical  Christians  took  upon  themselves  to 
destroy;  the  buffets,  of  course,  were  distributed  among 
assailants  and  defenders.  At  Tipasa,  in  Mauritania,  a 
little  girl,  called  Salsa,  crept  into  a  temple,  seized  a  bronze 
god  and  threw  him  from  the  top  of  a  cliff;  the  pagans 
caught  her  and  sent  her  to  rejoin  the  idol  at  the  bottom 
of  the  sea.  Such  occurrences  have  evidently  nothing  to 
do  with  the  laws ;  they  are  mere  accidents. 

As  to  the  laws  themselves,  their  application  naturally 
varied  very  much.  When  any  district  passed  over  entirely 
to  Christianity,  it  was  quite  natural  that  it  should  dispose 
as  it  pleased  of  the  buildings  of  the  ancient  cult.  The 
temples  were  then  closed  without  any  difficulty,  the  priest- 
hoods were  abolished,  the  gods  appropriated  to  the  adorn- 
ment of  public  places,  or  stored  in  some  corner.  The 
property  of  the  temples  reverted  to  the  municipalities,  if 
it  was  not  seized  upon  by  the  State,  as  often  happened. 
In  other  parts,  on  the  contrary,  in  towns  or  country 
places  which  refused  to  hear  of  Christianity,  temples 
and  priesthoods  were  preserved  ;  they  kept  up  the  festivals, 
the  games,  the  processions,  and  other  external  manifesta- 
tions ;  as  to  the  sacrifices,  if  they  ever  ventured  to  hold  them, 
they  took  good  care  to  arrange  matters  so  that  the  police 
should  know  nothing  about  it.  The  police,  in  fact,  often 
shut  their  eyes  when  they  did  not  connive.  Towards  the 
end  of  Constantius'  reign,  Tertullus,  prefect  of  Rome, 
disturbed  at  the  delay  of  a  convoy  of  corn,  offered  in  a 
temple  at  Ostia  a  sacrifice  to  Castor  and  Pollux.^  Most 
often,  and  especially  in  large  cities,  opinions  were  divided 
between  the  two  forms  of  worship.  There  were  certainly 
many  people  who  were  interested  in  both  at  once.  The 
Christian  assemblies,  the  vigil,  the  liturgy  were  rather 
exacting,  and  did  not  offer  much  food  for  excitement. 
The  populace  found  more  to  enjoy  in  the  meetings  which 
'  Ammianus  Marcellinus,  xix.  lo. 


p.  316-7]  FIRMICUS  MATERNUS  253 

were  held  outside  the  town,  near  the  tombs  of  the  martyrs. 
These  included  the  agapes,  from  which,  in  spite  of  all  the 
efforts  of  the  clergy,  a  certain  cheerfulness,  often  pro- 
ceeding to  excess,  was  not  excluded.  But  all  this  could 
not  be  compared  with  the  pomp  of  pagan  ceremonies. 
The  latter  continued  to  exist,  as  a  rule,  so  long  as  no 
means  of  replacing  them  could  be  found,  so  long  as  those 
of  the  religious  ceremonies  which  appealed  most  to  the 
heart  of  the  people  had  not  been  adapted  by  them  to  the 
religion  of  Christ, 

Generally  speaking,  and  taking  the  empire  as  a  whole, 
paganism  was  in  a  deep  decline.  It  was  giving  way  under 
imperial  dislike,  and  the  prohibition  of  its  form  of  worship. 
Of  the  many  educated  writers  who  still  professed  it,  not 
one  undertook  its  defence.  On  the  contrary,  there  was 
found  one  of  them  who,  having  recently  abandoned  it, 
drew  up  a  terrible  indictment  of  it.  Firmicus  Maternus 
was  an  advocate  of  Syracuse,  who  sought  distraction  from 
the  cares  of  his  profession  in  the  study  of  astrology. 
Towards  the  end  of  Constantine's  reign,  he  went  to 
Campania,  where  he  published  a  treatise  upon  that  science. 
Some  ten  years  later,  having  in  the  meantime  renounced 
paganism  and  the  study  of  the  stars,  he  addressed  to 
the  Emperors  Constantius  and  Constans,  a  book  upon 
"  The  Falsehood  of  the  Profane  Religions,"  in  which,  with 
doubtful  learning  and  the  use  of  strange  etymologies,  he 
draws  up  an  accusation  against  the  pagan  cults.^  He 
demands  their  abolition,  an  abolition  final  and  without 
mercy  :  "  For  we  must  make  an  end  of  them,  Most  Sacred 
Emperors,  you  must  cut  short  all  this  by  severe  legisla- 
tion. It  is  for  this  cause  that  God  has  given  you  the 
empire,  and  has  led  you  on  from  one  success  to  another. 
Remove,  remove  without  fear,  the  ornaments  of  the 
temples ;  send  the  gods  to  the  mint,  and  appropriate  for 
yourselves  their  possessions,  ,  ,  ,"     Such  are  the  exhorta- 

^  Thus  he  professes  to  find  in  Serapis  a  reproduction  of  the 
patriarch  Joseph.  The  sheaf  of  corn  which  the  god  bore  on  his  head 
seems  to  him  to  be  a  memorial  of  the  ministrations  of  Joseph  during 
the  years  of  plenty  and  of  famine. 


254    JULIAN  AND  THE  PAGAN  REACTION  [ch.  ix. 

tions  which  reappear  on  every  page  under  this  fanatical 
pen.  We  are  far  from  the  time  when  Justin  was  content 
with  imploring  the  emperors  not  to  shed  the  blood 
of  the  Christians. 

At  this  period,  it  seemed  scarcely  possible  that  such 
a  state  of  things  could  ever  return :  the  victory  of 
Christianity  was  a  brilliant  one,  and  the  total  disappear- 
ance of  the  old  religions  might  be  considered  as  near  at 
hand.  Suddenly,  however,  the  wind  changed ;  the 
forsaken  gods  again  ascended  the  altars,  and  the 
Christians  felt  themselves  threatened  anew  by  the  power 
of  the  State  which  had  once  more  become  hostile. 

Julian^  was  born  at  Constantinople  in  331;  he  was 
the  son  of  Julius  Constantius,  Constantine's  brother,  and 
of  Basilina,  a  Roman  lady  of  high  family,  who  died  shortly 
after  his  birth.  He  was  six  years  old  when  his  father  and 
one  of  his  brothers  perished  in  the  massacres  which 
followed  the  death  of  Constantine.  He  himself  escaped, 
with  his  other  brother  Callus.  He  was  reminded  later  on, 
that,  in  this  hour  of  danger,  he  had  had  reason  to  be 
grateful  for  the  devotion  of  certain  ecclesiastics.  When 
calm  was  restored,  and  Constantius  had  decided  to  take 
the  two  children  under  his  protection,  Julian  was  entrusted 
to  Eusebius,  Bishop  of  Nicomedia,  a  distant  relative,  who 
had  already  exercised  influence  over  his  mother.  He 
remained  with  him,  at  Nicomedia  and  at  Constantinople, 
for  five  years.  On  the  death  of  Eusebius,  Julian  and 
Gallus,  hitherto  separated,  were  reunited  and  placed  in  a 
villa  called  Makellon,  at  the  foot  of  Mount  Argeus,  not 
far  from  Csesarea  in  Cappadocia.  They  remained  there 
nearly  eight  years,  until  the  time  (351)  when  Gallus  was 
appointed  Caesar,  and  went  away  to  reign  at  Antioch. 
As  for  Julian,  he  was  allowed  to  finish  his  education  by 
attending  the  lectures  of  distinguished  masters.  For 
this  purpose  he  stayed  in  Constantinople,  in  Bithynia, 
and  in  Asia.  Being  implicated  in  the  affair  of  Gallus, 
in  354,  he  was  summoned  to  Italy,  to  the  presence  of  the 
emperor.  The  Empress  Eusebia  interceded  in  his  favour ; 
^  P.  Allard,  y^^/zV«  PApostat  {i^oo-igo2,). 


p.  319]  JUIJAN'S  EDUCATION  255 

and  he  was  allowed  to  resume  his  studies.  It  was  then 
that  he  visited  Athens,  and  made  the  acquaintance  of 
Gregory  and  Basil,  two  young  Cappadocians,  destined  to 
win  distinction  as  bishops.  He  did  not  remain  there  long, 
and  was  recalled  in  355  to  the  court  at  Milan,  to  be 
associated  in  his  turn  in  the  government  of  the  empire, 
and  was  charged  to  watch  over  the  defence  of  the  Western 
provinces.  We  know  that  he  acquitted  himself  conscienti- 
ously and  successfully  of  this  task,  that  he  shrank  from 
none  of  the  duties,  great  or  small,  which  it  imposed  upon 
him,  and  that  the  impression  which  he  left  in  Gaul  was  a 
favourable  one. 

Yet,  under  this  defender  of  the  Roman  fatherland, 
was  concealed  a  Greek  sophist ;  this  representative,  this 
colleague  of  the  pious  Emperor  Constantius  was  at  heart 
a  convinced  and  devout  pagan.  His  inward  development, 
known  or  suspected  by  a  few  persons  only,  was  a  thing 
of  long  standing.  The  circumstances  of  his  education 
explain  it  in  some  degree. 

His  parents  were  Christians,  like  all  the  imperial 
family.  When  quite  a  little  child,  he  had  danced  on 
the  knees  of  Constantine,  "  the  external  Bishop "  of  the 
Christian  Church.  He  was  baptized  while  still  young, 
and,  until  he  left  the  villa  of  Makellon,  we  see  him  always 
surrounded  by  ecclesiastical  personages.  It  is  true  that 
these  were  distinguished  members  of  the  Arian  group, 
and  that,  in  this  school  of  religious  sophistry,  the  Gospel 
was  largely  concealed  by  metaphysics.  Occupied  in- 
cessantly with  questions  as  to  the  Divine  relationships 
and  processions,  they  lost  sight  of  the  message  of  Christ, 
of  His  history,  and  of  His  work  of  salvation.  In  the 
conflict  of  the  creeds,  in  the  intrigues  of  the  court  bishops, 
and  their  eagerness  to  overthrow  each  other,  the  Church 
lamentably  frittered  away  its  prestige.  Men  like  Eusebius, 
George,  and  Aetius  did  but  feebly  commend  Christianity. 
Yet  the  convictions  of  the  faithful  were,  as  a  rule,  stronger 
than  this  state  of  things ;  it  did  not  check  the  progress  of 
conversions,  even  among  the  well-educated  classes.  And 
besides,  Julian's  criticism  of  the  Christian  religion  did  not 


256    JULIAN  AND  THE  PAGAN  REACTION  [ch.  ix. 

attack  this  or  that  particular  shade  of  opinion.  It  was 
with  the  whole  of  it  that  he  found  fault ;  it  was  from 
Christianity  as  such  that  he  broke  himself  free.  And 
he  broke  himself  free,  because  he  had  developed  a 
different  religious  conscience. 

He  knew  Latin,  and  spoke  it  "  sufficiently,"  says 
Ammianus.^  We  should  scarcely  suspect  it  in  reading 
his  books  and  his  letters ;  learned  as  he  was  in  literature, 
he  never  quotes  a  Latin  author,  not  even  Vergil.  Rome 
scarcely  seems  to  exist  for  him  ;  it  is  Athens  which  is 
the  centre  of  things. 

In  heaven  he  saw  only  the  gods  of  Greece ;  and  in  this 
world  only  the  memories  or  the  present  interests  of 
Hellenism,  and  of  religious  Hellenism.  Julian  was  a 
devotee  of  the  old  cult,  an  enthusiastic  adept  in  the 
mysteries  and  the  pagan  theology.  Of  the  ancient  poets, 
he  knew  scarcely  any  save  the  sacred  poets.  Homer  and 
Hesiod.  More  eclectic  in  philosophy,  he  at  first  read 
Plato,  Aristotle,  and  other  authors ;  but  as  soon  as  he 
gained  some  measure  of  freedom  from  his  teachers,  his 
natural  bent  diverted  him  from  the  logicians  and  led  him 
to  the  mystics,  to  the  neo-Platonists ;  and  even  in  this, 
not  to  those  among  them  who,  like  yEdesius  of  Pergamum 
and  Eusebius  of  Myndos,  followed  the  philosophy  of 
Plotinus,  but  rather  to  the  disciples  of  lamblichus,  to 
those  who  practised  magic  and  occultism.  It  was  in  this 
way  that  he  fell  into  the  hands  of  Maximus  of  Ephesus, 
who  introduced  him  into  the  secret  mysteries  of  his  own 
philosophy,  and  put  him  in  touch  with  the  gods.  Julian 
was  twenty  years  old ;  his  life,  having  always  been 
carefully  watched  over  by  trustworthy  persons,  had 
remained  serious  and  even  austere.  He  had  no  passion 
save  for  the  mystery  of  things,  especially  of  things 
unseen.  And  in  these  pursuits  the  remainder  of  his 
Christianity  vanished  away.  He  had  been  instructed  in 
its  doctrine ;  he  had  been  made  to  read  the  Bible,  and 
to  listen  to  catechetical  lectures.  But  now,  Moses, 
Jeremiah,  Luke,  and  Matthew  seemed  to  him  but  fustian 

^  xvi.  5,  7. 


p.  321-2]  JULIANAS  BELIEFS  257 

authors  in  comparison  with  Homer,  Plato,  and  lambh'chus. 
His  relations  with  the  philosophers  having  caused  some 
talk,  his  brother  Gallus,  disturbed  with  good  reason  as 
to  their  consequences,  thought  it  expedient  to  send  to  him 
the  most  celebrated  of  the  Christian  sophists,  Aetius,  who 
was  then  astonishing  Antioch  by  the  success  of  his 
disputations.  It  was  a  mere  waste  of  time.  Against  the 
mysticism  which  enthralled  the  soul  of  Julian  of  what 
avail  was  the  arid  and  empty  scholasticism  of  the  masters 
in  Arianism  ? 

The  disciple  of  Maximus  of  Ephesus  endured  the 
disputations  of  Aetius  as  he  endured  many  other  things : 
Constantius,  as  he  knew  well,  was  not  a  man  to  be  trifled 
with  in  that  quarter.  Julian  detested  his  cousin,  whom 
those  about  him  had  not  failed  to  represent  to  him  as  the 
assassin  of  his  family.  But  this  hatred  did  not  prevent 
him  from  dedicating  to  Constantius  a  fulsome  panegyric  ; 
he  composed  another  in  honour  of  the  Empress  Eusebia. 
In  these  compositions,  it  was  still  the  fashion  ^  to  make 
use  of  pagan  legends.  This  was  a  consolation  to  Julian  : 
he  extolled  his  cousin — a  thing  most  distasteful  to  him  ; 
but  he  was  also  able  to  extol  his  gods,  and  this  delighted 
him. 

With  the  exception  of  these  formal  exercises,  he  was 
obliged,  notwithstanding  his  ardour  as  a  neophyte,  to 
continue  to  profess  himself  a  Christian — a  Galilean,  as  he 
began  to  say — to  take  part  in  the  religious  assemblies 
presided  over  by  the  official  clergy,  and  to  conceal  his 
devotion  to  the  proscribed  gods  under  an  apparent  zeal 
for  the  religion  which  persecuted  them.  It  was  a  difficult 
and  cruel  position ;  for  there  is  no  doubt  whatever  that 
Julian's  new  convictions  were  profoundly  sincere.  God 
knows  what  would  have  been  the  issue  of  this  inward 
struggle,  if  it  had  been  protracted  as  long  as  the  respective 
ages  of  Julian  and  Constantius  seemed  to  foreshadow. 
The  circumstances,  which  soon  brought  the  two  cousins 

'  This  lasted  for  a  very  long  time.  In  the  5th  century,  the 
panegyrics  of  Sidonius  Apollinaris  still  make  the  corps  of  ancient 
Olympus  perform  their  customary  manoeuvTes. 

II  R 


258    JULIAN  AND  THE  PAGAN  REACTION  [ch.  ix. 

into  conflict,  allowed  Julian  to  show  himself  in  his  true 
colours.  He  was  not  in  any  hurry.  On  January  6,  361, 
he  was  still  to  be  seen  at  Vienne,  where  he  was  spending 
the  winter,  taking  part  in  the  Christian  mysteries.  It  was 
for  the  last  time :  the  following  summer,  in  his  march 
through  Pannonia,  he  threw  off  all  disguise,  and  celebrated 
with  full  ceremonial,  before  the  whole  army,  the  sacrifices 
which  hitherto  he  had  concealed  in  the  secrecy  of  his 
private  life.  His  enthusiasm  for  the  ancient  gods  quickly 
burst  forth  in  his  speeches  and  in  his  official  correspond- 
ence, as  did  also  his  rage  against  Constantius.^ 

The  two  cousins  were  marching  against  each  other. 
The  situation  was  becoming  tragic.  They  were  approach- 
ing to  a  second  battle  of  the  Milvian  Bridge,  to  an  encounter 
between  a  pagan  and  a  Christian  army.  However,  things 
took  another  turn.  The  death  of  Constantius  allowed 
Julian  to  enter  Constantinople  in  peace  (December  1 1,  361). 
Instead  of  joining  battle  with  his  rival,  Julian  presided 
over  his  obsequies. 

He  took  his  revenge  upon  the  ministers.  A  special 
court  was  set  up,  and  balanced  with  much  severity  the 
accounts  of  the  new  Augustus.  Among  his  victims 
figured  the  prefect  Taurus,  the  hero  of  the  Council  of 
Ariminum,  and  the  high  chamberlain,  Eusebius,  whose 
baleful  figure  crosses  now  and  again  the  story  of  St 
Athanasius  and  of  Pope  Liberius.  Eusebius  was  put  to 
death ;  he  had  played  a  part  in  the  affair  of  Gallus  which 
Julian  did  not  forgive.     Taurus  was  only  exiled.- 

But  the  chief  care  of  the  new  sovereign,  the  ruling 
conception  of  the  reign  which  was  beginning,  was  to  give 
paganism  its  revenge.  Julian  at  once  outlined  his  policy, 
and  displayed  in  his  person  the  Constantine  of  the  old 
religion.  An  edict  ordered  the  re-opening  of  the  temples, 
and  the  renewal  everywhere  of  the  sacrifices.^  This 
ordinance  could  not  fail  to  be  received  with  a  wide 
divergence  of  opinion.  There  were  some  places  in  which 
it   gave   pleasure  to  the   populace,  which    had  remained 

^  See  especially  his  letter  to  the  Athenians. 
2  Ammianus,  xxii.  3.  ^  Ibid,  xxii.  5. 


p.  324]  THE  TEMPLES  REOPENED  259 

faithful  to  the  gods  of  old.  Elsewhere,  it  appeared  ill- 
timed,  the  majority  of  the  people  having  passed  over  to 
Christianity.  Many  municipalities  had  begun  to  demolish 
the  temples  ;  their  endowments  in  land  and  their  furniture 
had  been  either  confiscated  by  the  State,  or  alienated  by 
the  local  authorities.  Julian  soon  ordered  everything  to 
be  put  in  the  same  position  as  before.  A  similar  order 
had  been  given  in  312  by  Constantine  and  Licinius,  in 
favour  of  the  Christian  churches.  We  do  not  gather  that 
at  that  time  it  raised  any  serious  difficulties ;  besides, 
when  it  was  a  question  of  private  persons  being  dis- 
possessed, the  emperors,  in  312,  indemnified  them.  Julian 
considered  himself  dispensed  from  doing  so  much. 
According  to  his  ideas,  the  fact  of  having  concurred  in 
the  destruction  and  spoliation  of  the  temples  constituted 
a  crime  for  which  it  was  natural  to  take  vengeance.  He 
did  not  go  so  far  doubtless  as  to  enjoin  personal  punish- 
ment for  this  ;  but  he  showed  great  harshness  in  his  claims 
to  restitution,  condemning  bishops,  who  had  more  or  less 
favoured  the  destruction  of  the  temples,  to  rebuild  them, 
if  necessary ;  and  above  all  showing  the  greatest  indulg- 
ence towards  popular  riots  in  favour  of  his  pagan 
reaction. 

The  first  victim  was  the  intruded  Bishop  of  Alexandria, 
George  the  Cappadocian.  Driven  from  Alexandria  in  358, 
this  not  very  attractive  individual  had  trailed  from  council 
to  council,  mixing  in  every  intrigue  against  orthodoxy  and 
its  defenders.  Finally,  just  at  the  moment  when  Con- 
stantius  was  leaving  Antioch  to  pursue  hostilities  against 
Julian,  he  regained  possession,  after  three  years'  absence, 
of  the  metropolis  of  Egypt,  where  the  police  had  prepared 
the  way  for  him.  Quite  apart  from  the  horror  which  he 
inspired  in  the  adherents  of  Athanasius,  George  was 
universally  detested.  Many  Alexandrians  had  cause  to 
complain  of  his  denunciations  to  the  government  and  his 
acts  of  greed.  The  temples,  which  were  still  standing, 
exasperated  him ;  he  never  ceased  to  utter  threats 
regarding  them.  It  was  on  November  26,  361,  that  the 
Alexandrians  once   more  beheld    the  bishop  whom  they 


260    JULIAN  AND  THE  PAGAN  REACTION   [ch.  ix. 

loathed.  Four  days  later,  the  prefect  published  the  news 
of  the  death  of  the  emperor,  and  the  accession  of  Julian. 
Instantly,  the  population  rose  in  rebelHon.  George  was 
not  killed  that  day,  but  only  imprisoned.  On  December 
25,  another  outbreak  tore  him  from  his  prison.  He  was 
murdered,  with  an  official  named  Dracontius,  against 
whom  the  pagans  had  had  cause  of  complaint.  The  dead 
body  of  the  bishop  was  hoisted  upon  a  camel ;  several 
fanatics  harnessed  themselves  to  the  body  of  Dracontius, 
Both  corpses  were  thus  dragged  round  the  town ;  then 
they  were  burnt,  and  the  ashes  were  scattered  to  the 
winds.  Such  was  at  Alexandria  the  ceremonial  of 
executions,  when  the  populace  took  them  into  their 
own  hands. 

Julian,  on  being  informed  of  the  affair,  confined 
himself  to  scolding  the  people  of  Alexandria.  They 
ought  to  have  reserved  George  for  the  justice  of  the 
courts.  Apart  from  this  question  of  procedure,  he  could 
not  but  approve  of  their  action :  George  was  an  enemy  of 
the  gods.  Afterwards  he  remembered  that  the  deceased 
prelate  possessed  a  very  fine  library,  of  which  he  had 
formerly  profited  to  cheat  the  tedium  of  Makellon  :  the 
officials  were  ordered  to  recover  it,  and  send  it  to  the 
court.^ 

The  emperor  in  Julian  had  not  destroyed  the  man  of 
letters.  He  always  loved  books ;  he  found  time  to  read, 
and  even  to  write.  His  nights,  which  were  not  shortened 
by  worldly  festivities,  were  for  the  most  part  consecrated 
to  study.  It  is  from  this  time,  the  time  when  he  was 
burdened  with  the  empire,  that  there  dates  almost  all  his 
literary  work,  his  theological  treatises  upon  the  King  Sun, 
and  upon  the  Mother  of  the  Gods,  his  writings  against  the 
Cynics  and  the  Christians,  his  satires,  the  Caesars,  the 
Misopogon,  and  lastly,  letters  of  importance,  such  as  that 
to  the  Athenians,  that  to  Themistius,  and  a  long  religious 
manifesto,  of  which  only  fragments  remain.  From  the 
outset  he  had  summoned  to  his  court  rhetoricians  and 
philosophers,  Libanius,  Themistius,  Maximus  of  Ephesus, 
'  Jidiani  epp.  9,  10,  36. 


p.  327]  IDEALS  OF  JULIAN  261 

and  honoured  them  as  demi-gods.  To  converse  with  them 
was  his  greatest  pleasure.  It  was  of  no  moment  that  he 
had  reached  his  thirtieth  year ;  he  was  ahvays  a  disciple. 

He  was  also  a  religious  zealot.  There  had  been  other 
emperors  who  were  attached  to  the  old  national  religion, 
and  some  of  them  had  even  busied  themselves  with  ardour 
in  trying  to  bring  back  to  it  the  Christians  who  had  strayed. 
But  such  piety,  such  eagerness  for  holy  things,  for  the 
sacrifices,  the  processions,  and  the  temples,  no  one  had 
ever  displayed.  The  only  one  of  his  predecessors  who 
could  be  at  all  compared  with  Julian  in  this  respect  was 
Maximin,  the  Maximin  after  the  time  of  Galerius,  who  could 
no  longer  persecute  openly,  but  who  found  means  of  doing 
so  indirectly,  by  exciting  the  religious  zeal  of  the  muni- 
cipalities. Julian  made  it  known  throughout  the  empire 
that  his  favour  would  be  proportioned  to  the  enthusiasm 
shown  for  the  service  of  the  gods.  If  people  would  re- 
build the  temples,  provide  the  ministrations  in  them  and 
frequent  them,  they  could  obtain  anything  they  wished ; 
if  not,  they  should  have  nothing,  not  even  a  garrison  to 
protect  them  when  the  enemy  was  approaching. 

Like  Maximin  again  he  was  to  be  seen  organizing  the 
priestly  colleges,  grouping  the  priests  of  the  different 
sanctuaries  around  a  high  priest  for  each  district,  and 
above  these  establishing  provincial  high  priests ;  in  other 
words,  creating  pagan  bishops  and  archbishops.  But — and 
here  there  is  a  striking  difference  which  it  is  only  fair  to 
notice — whilst  Maximin  chose  for  these  positions  people 
who  were  rich  and  ennobled,  Julian  desired  a  body  of 
men  who  were  virtuous.  He  required  from  them  good 
examples  ;  the  high  priests  were  to  watch  over  the  conduct 
of  their  subordinates,  to  reprimand,  and  to  punish  them,  if 
necessary.  His  bishops  were  to  be  pious  and  of  good 
character,  like  those  of  the  Christians.  He  even  went  so 
far  as  to  urge  them  to  organize  charitable  foundations 
and  systems  of  relief,  such  as  existed  everywhere  in  the 
Christian  communities. 

These  were  the  dreams  of  a  student !  Paganism, 
especially  in  the  East,  did  not  lend  itself  to  such  reforms. 


262    JULIAN  AND  THE  PAGAN  REACTION  [ch.  ix. 

The  idea  which  Julian  formed  for  himself  of  the  priesthood 
and  its  duties  was  a  Christian  idea.  Never  did  a  pagan 
priest  dream  that  he  was  under  an  obligation  to  live  a 
more  ascetic  life  than  other  men,  or  that  the  care  of  the 
needy  had  a  special  connection  with  his  functions.  Julian 
was  pouring  the  new  wine  into  the  old  bottles,  and  seeking 
to  introduce  the  Christian  spirit  into  the  disinterred  corpse 
of  paganism.  His  success  was  indifferent.  Those  about 
him  soon  grew  weary  of  his  devotion,  his  pious  exercises, 
his  continual  sacrifices.  His  clergy,  among  whom  he  had 
included  several  apostates  from  Christianity,  were  far  from 
giving  him  satisfaction.  When  he  had  established  himself 
at  Antioch,  he  wished  to  conform  to  the  religious  observ- 
ances of  the  country.  But  the  cult  of  the  Syrian  gods 
was  not  made  for  people  of  austere  morals.  Julian 
appeared  at  the  consecrated  ceremonies  with  a  retinue 
which  would  have  deeply  distressed  his  old  teachers.  He 
only  made  himself  ridiculous,  and  compromised  at  one  and 
the  same  time  his  philosophy  and  his  dignity  as  emperor. 

Of  course  this  restoration  of  paganism  excluded  all 
Christians  from  the  imperial  favour,  even  before  it  rendered 
them  outlaws.  But  they  were  numerous  in  the  East,  and 
Julian  was  obliged  to  proceed  gradually  in  his  manifesta- 
tions of  ill-will.  The  day  after  he  entered  Constantinople, 
the  heads  of  the  different  Christian  confessions — Arians, 
Anomoeans,  Macedonians,  orthodox,  and  Novatians — were 
summoned  to  the  palace,  to  listen  to  a  declaration  that 
there  was  no  longer  any  official  Christianity,  and  that  no 
form  of  it  was  proscribed  by  the  State.  No  more  fair- 
sounding  statement  could  have  been  found  ;  but  the  inten- 
tion which  dictated  this  toleration  was  to  set  the  different 
sects  by  the  ears,  and  in  this  way  to  weaken  the  resistance 
to  paganism.^  It  was  for  the  same  end  that  the  sentences 
of  exile  or  imprisonment,  pronounced  as  the  sequel  to 
the  decisions  of  councils,  were  revoked.      The   orthodox 

^  It  is  Ammianus  (xxii.  5)  who  discloses  to  us  this  intention. 
JuHan  knew,  he  says,  that  there  are  no  savage  beasts  more  ferocious 
than  the  Christians  are  one  to  another.  Such  was  the  impression 
given  to  enhghtened  pagans  by  the  theological  quarrels  of  that  time. 


p.  329]  RETURN  OF  THE  EXILES  263 

bishops,  those  who  adhered  to  the  Nicene  Confession  of 
Faith,  profited  by  this  permission,  and  returned  to  their 
dioceses.  So  too  did  Basil  of  Ancyra  and  his  friends,  who 
had  been  so  harshly  treated  by  the  Council  of  360 ;  and  so 
did  several  stubborn  Anomoeans.  We  can  readily  imagine 
the  disturbances  likely  to  be  caused  by  the  return  of  these 
bishops,  who  found  their  sees  occupied  by  successors. 
Such  was  not,  it  is  true,  the  case  of  Alexandria,  where 
Athanasius  reappeared  on  February  21,  and  found  his 
place  vacant.  But,  in  Africa,  the  return  of  the  Donatist 
leaders  was  a  veritable  plague,  which  a  statesman  worthy 
of  the  name  would  never  have  thought  of  letting  loose. 

Unfortunately,  in  Julian,  the  statesman  was  stifled  by  the 
sectarian.  The  recall  of  the  exiled  bishops,  whatever  may 
have  been  the  secret  motive  for  it,  was  justifiable  in  theory  ; 
and  in  practice,  if  some  of  its  consequences  were  bad, 
others  were  good.  But  it  was  followed  by  other  measures, 
justified  by  no  theory  of  toleration.  The  Christian  clergy, 
exempted  from  obligations  of  municipal  service  by  Con- 
stantine,  were  now  once  more  put  upon  the  list ;  all 
their  privileges  were  abolished.  The  bishops  were  deprived 
of  the  civil  jurisdiction  which  Constantine  had  granted 
them.^  Shortly  afterwards.  Christians  were  excluded  from 
all  positions  in  the  imperial  household,  from  all  high 
administrative  posts,  and  even  from  the  army,  so  far  as 
that  was  possible.  Finally,  the  teaching  of  grammar  and 
of  rhetoric  was  forbidden  to  Christian  masters.- 

All  these  measures,  the  last  especially,  were  cruelly 
felt.  The  prohibition  to  Christians  of  the  teaching  of 
literature  and  philosophy ,3  affected  masters  of  distinction. 

'  We  shall  speak  of  this  later  on. 

-  Ammianus  (xxii.  10)  blames  this  measure  very  much :  Illud 
autem  erat  incleme?!s,  obruendttni  percnni  silentio,  quod  arcebat  doc  ere 
vtagistros  rhetoricos  et  granimaticos  ritus  christiani  c  id  tores. 

^  Philosophy  is  not  mentioned  in  Ammianus'  text  given  in  the 
last  note,  but  Julian  expressly  mentions  it  in  his  edict  {Ep.  42) 
efre  pTjropes  eire  ypa/jiixaTiKol  Kal  in  irX^ov  ol  ao(pL(XTal.  In  this  edict  he 
leaves  to  young  Christians  permission  to  obtain  instruction  in  the 
official  schools.  There  are  certain  indications  that  he  withdrew  it 
afterwards.     In   any  case    such    schools    having   necessarily,   in   his 


264    JULIAN  AND  THE  PAGAN  REACTION  [ch.  ix. 

Victorinus  at  Rome,  Proha^resius  in  Athens  descended 
from  their  professorial  chairs,  the  latter  in  spite  of  the 
entreaties  of  Julian  who  would  have  made  an  exception 
in  his  favour. 

All  the  cultured  members  of  the  Christian  ranks 
felt  themselves  placed  in  a  position  of  ostracism.  In 
the  emperor's  name  they  were  excluded  from  the 
Hellenic  tradition  and  from  intellectual  culture.  Two 
Christians  of  Laodicea  in  Syria,  the  two  Apollinarii, 
father  and  son,  endeavoured  to  replace  the  authors 
snatched  from  their  hands,  by  compositions  in  verse  and 
prose  upon  subjects  derived  from  the  Bible  and  the 
Gospel.  Their  zeal,  seconded  by  an  extraordinary  facility 
of  composition,  was  fortunately  useless.  They  had  not 
finished  putting  Genesis  into  the  form  of  an  epic,  and 
the  Gospel  into  Socratic  dialogues,  when  the  wind 
changed.     They  returned  to  Homer  and  Plato. 

All  this  manifestation  of  ill-will  on  the  part  of  Julian 
stopped  short,  however,  of  actual  persecution.  A  Christian 
who  had  finished  his  education,  who  was  neither  an 
official  nor  a  soldier,  and  who  was  able  to  live  without 
asking  anything  from  the  government,  was  not  threatened 
with  death  by  the  authorities  of  the  State  for  the  mere 
fact  of  professing  the  Christian  religion.  The  churches 
still  remained  open,  and  worship  was  carried  on  there 
as  in  the  past.  But  the  attempt  to  revive  paganism  in 
a  country  where  almost  everyone  was  a  Christian  could 
not  fail  to  produce  numerous  protests,  and  these  were 
severely  requited.  This  fact  was  responsible  for  executions, 
such  as  that  of  the  priest  Basil,  at  Ancyra,^  the  soldier 
^milianus,  who  was  burnt  alive  at  Dorostorum,  on  the 
Lower  Danube,  for  an  insult  to  pagan  worship,-  and  of 
three  Christians  of  Meros  in  Phrygia — Macedonius, 
Theodulus,  and  Tatian  ^ — who  were  guilty  of  having  broken 

view,  a  religious  character  in  a  pagan  sense,  it  would  have  been  very 

difficult  for  Christians  to  attend  them. 

*  Sozomen,  H.  E.  v.  ii.  ^  Jerome,  Chron.  a.  Abr.  2379, 

^  It  was  to  these  that  there  was  at  first  attributed  the  celebrated 

mot  afterwards  put  into  the  mouth  of  the  Roman  deacon  Laurence. 


p.  332]  PAGANS  AND  CHRISTIANS  265 

some  newly  restored  idols.  The  people  of  Caesarea  in 
Cappadocia  had  in  the  reign  of  Constantius  destroyed 
nearly  all  their  temples :  there  still  remained  one  of  these, 
the  Temple  of  Fortune :  they  decided  upon  its  destruc- 
tion. The  time  was  ill-chosen.  The  wrath  of  Julian 
fell  upon  the  audacious  city,  which  lost  its  municipal 
rights ;  upon  the  Church  of  Caesarea,  which  he  subjected 
to  an  enormous  fine ;  and  upon  the  clergy,  whom  he 
caused  to  be  enrolled  in  the  police  bands,  a  laborious  and 
degrading  service.  Several  citizens,  who  had  been  more 
especially  responsible  for  the  destruction  of  the  temple, 
were  exiled  or  put  to  death ;  among  the  latter  have  been 
preserved  the  names  of  Eupsychius  and  Damas.^ 

Moreover,  in  those  countries  where  pagans  were  in 
the  majority  and  now  felt  themselves  the  masters,  they 
had  no  obligation  to  restrain  themselves  in  taking  their 
revenge  upon  the  Christians  for  the  slights  of  which  their 
own  form  of  worship  had  been  the  object  during  the 
preceding  reigns.  In  Syria,  where  the  proportion  of 
Christians  varied  very  much  in  different  places,  we  hear 
of  deplorable  scenes.  At  Emesa,  and  at  Epiphania, 
Bacchanal  processions  streamed  into  the  church  bearing 
a  statue  of  Dionysos,  which  they  installed  upon  the 
altar.2  The  Christian  cemetery  at  Emesa  was  given  to 
the  flames.3  The  old  Bishop  of  Arethusa,  Mark,  the 
same  who  had  saved  Julian  at  the  time  of  the  massacres 
of  337,  found  himself  denounced  to  the  emperor  for 
having  ill-treated  pagans  and  destroyed  a  temple.  When 
condemned  to  rebuild  it  he  refused.  He  was  then  given 
over  to  the  mob,  who  dragged  him  through  the  streets, 
tearing  out  his  beard,  and  tormenting  him  in  a  thousand 
ways;  then  he  was  given  over  to  the  school  children, 
who   amused   themselves   by   tossing   him    in   the  air   to 

Stretched  upon  a  burning  gridiron,  they  called  out  to  the  judge  : 
"We  are  cooked  enough  on  this  side ;  now  turn  us,  and  you  will  eat 
us  better  done."     (Socrates,  iii.  15  ;  f/".  Sozomen,  v.  11.) 

^  Sozomen,  v.  4,  11.     St  Basil  often  speaks  of  them. 

2  Chron.  Pasch.,  pp.  295,  296. 

^  Julian,  Misopogcm,  p.  461  (ed.  Hertlein). 


266    JULIAN  AND  THE  PAGAN  REACTION  [ch.  ix. 

catch  him  on  their  sharp-pointed  styluses ;  finally,  he 
was  smeared  with  honey,  bruised  as  he  was,  and  exposed 
to  the  wasps.  Yet  they  did  not  finish  him ;  he  survived 
this  abominable  treatment.  At  Alexandria,  Ascalon, 
Gaza,  and  Heliopolis,  the  pagan  population  was  continu- 
ally breaking  out  into  disturbances.  Priests  and  virgins 
were  massacred  with  horrible  refinements  of  cruelty  ;  their 
bodies  were  cut  open,  and  upon  their  quivering  entrails 
barley  was  thrown  that  they  might  be  devoured  by 
swine.  Julian  did  not  interfere.  He  even  encouraged 
the  populace  guilty  of  these  atrocities.  Constantine  had 
made  Maiouma,  the  port  of  Gaza,  an  independent  city. 
Maiouma  was  Christian :  Julian  deprived  it  of  its 
autonomy,  and  subjected  it  once  more  to  the  pagans  of 
Gaza.  The  governor  of  Palestine,  having  tried  to  punish 
the  instigators  of  a  riot  in  which  four  Christians  of  that 
city  had  perished,  the  emperor  deprived  him  of  his 
position  and  sent  him  into  exile. 

Everything  that  could  worry  the  Christians  was  good 
in  his  eyes.  It  was  nearly  three  centuries  since  the 
temple  of  Jerusalem  had  been  destroyed,  and  the  Jews 
deprived  of  access  to  their  former  holy  city ;  the  new 
town  of  Aelia  was  peopled  with  Christians.  The  idea 
came  to  Julian  of  rebuilding  the  Temple  of  Israel,  and 
reviving  a  cult  for  which  personally  he  felt  nothing  but 
contempt.  His  intention  was  evident :  he  wished  to  do 
an  injury  to  the  great  Christian  pilgrimages,  and  to  set 
up  a  rival  to  the  beautiful  churches  of  Constantine.  The 
undertaking,  though  entrusted  to  an  official  of  high  rank 
and  supported  with  large  sums  of  money,  had  for  all  that 
no  result.  As  soon  as  the  foundations  of  the  old  building 
were  disturbed,  flames  burst  from  them  which  burnt 
several  of  the  workmen  and,  what  is  more,  terrified  the 
agents  of  Julian,  who  were  apparently  as  superstitious 
as  their  master.^ 

At    Antioch,  where  nearly  everyone  was  a  Christian, 
the  emperor  did  not  get  much  satisfaction.     He  tried  to 
restore  the  vanished  cults,  especially  that  of  Daphne.     The 
^  Ammianus,  xxiii.  i. 


p.  334]  SCENES  AT  ANTIOCH  267 

martyr  Babylas,  installed  in  the  Sacred  Wood  by  the 
Caesar  Callus,  was  an  obnoxious  neighbour  for  Apollo. 
Julian  ordered  his  remains  to  be  carried  back  to  the 
cemetery.  The  Christians  obeyed,  but  the  translation 
took  place  in  the  midst  of  a  great  gathering  of  the  faithful, 
and  had  the  appearance  of  a  formal  protest.  Antioch, 
as  its  inhabitants  boasted,  remained  loyal  to  the  X  and 
the  K,  that  is  to  say  to  Christ  (Xpicrro?)  and  to  Constantius 
(Kajj/o-raVrto?).  The  news  soon  followed  that  a  fire  had 
broken  out  in  the  sanctuary  of  Daphne,  and  that  the  idol 
was  burned.  Julian  was  furious,  and  gave  orders  for  the 
closing  of  the  Great  Church,  the  church  which  Constantine 
had  built,  and  which  the  council  of  341  had  dedicated. 
It  was  even  stripped  of  its  sacred  furniture.  The  officials, 
who  on  this  occasion  invaded  the  sacred  edifice,  headed 
by  Julian,  Count  of  the  Orient,  uncle  of  the  emperor,  and, 
like  him,  a  renegade,  behaved  themselves  like  blackguards, 
and  did  not  hesitate  at  indescribable  profanations.  The 
aged  Bishop  Euzoms  tried  to  protest :  they  boxed 
his  ears. 

These  acts  of  violence  did  but  increase  the  unpopularity 
of  the  apostate  emperor.  He  was  conscious  of  it,  but  his 
stubborn  disposition  resisted  all  opposition,  even  the 
appeals  of  his  most  intimate  friends,  such  as  the  prefect 
Sallust,  and  the  rhetorician  Libanius.  His  hatred  for  the 
Galileans  overflowed  into  all  his  acts,  his  letters,  and 
his  conversations.  He  ended  by  writing  against  them  a 
work  in  three  books,  afterwards  refuted  by  Cyril  of 
Alexandria,  who  has  thus  preserved  to  us  a  part  of  it. 
He  also  wrote,  against  the  people  of  Antioch,  his  celebrated 
Misopogoft,  in  which  he  answers  the  criticisms  of  which 
his  personal  appearance,  and  especially  his  long  beard,  had 
been  the  constant  butt.  The  people  of  Antioch  loved  him 
little,  and  he  returned  their  dislike.  He  concluded  by 
promising  them  that,  on  his  return  from  the  Persian  War, 
for  which  he  was  making  preparations  at  the  time,  he 
would  deprive  them  of  his  presence,  and  would  establish 
himself  at  Tarsus. 

This  was  as  a  matter  of  fact  what  happened  ;  but  not  as 


268    JULIAN  AND  THE  PAGAN  REACTION  [cH.  ix. 

the  emperor  intended.  Julian,  after  having  invaded  the 
Persian  empire  and  led  his  army  as  far  as  the  walls 
of  Ctesiphon,  found  himself  compelled  to  retrace  his 
steps.  In  the  course  of  a  disastrous  retreat,  he  was 
mortally  wounded  by  an  arrow,  on  June  26,  363  ;  his 
body  was  carried  to  Tarsus.  The  leaders  of  the  army 
immediately  chose  as  his  successor  the  commander  of  the 
guard,  Jovian.  The  famous  expedition  ended  in  a  shame- 
ful peace,  by  which  the  empire  lost,  not  only  part  of  the 
satrapies  beyond  the  Tigris,  annexed  under  Diocletian, 
but  the  fortress  of  Nisibis  and  the  surrounding  country, 
a  district  which  had  long  been  included  in  the  province 
of  Mesopotamia. 

The  new  emperor  was  a  Christian.  Everyone  realized 
that  the  festival  of  paganism  was  at  an  end.  The 
supporters  of  the  Hellenic  restoration  suffered  many 
anxious  moments.  But  they  escaped  with  a  good  fright. 
Jovian  persecuted  no  one ;  as  to  the  Christians,  they 
naturally  saw  the  hand  of  Providence  in  the  death  of  the 
apostate,  and  lavished  on  his  memory  the  most  heart-felt 
maledictions.  But  they  went  no  further,  and  their  leaders 
were  the  first  to  preach  to  them  forgetfulness  of  injuries. 


CHAPTER  X 

AFTER   ARIMINUM 

The  Councils  of  Paris  and  of  Alexandria.  Restoration  of  the  lapsed. 
Lucifer,  Eusebius,  and  Apollinaris.  Schism  at  Antioch  :  Meletius, 
and  Paulinus.  Athanasius  exiled  in  Julian's  reign.  His  relations 
with  Jovian,  The  "Acacians"  accept  the  Creed  of  Nicaea. 
Valentinian  and  Valens.  The  religious  policy  of  Valentinian. 
Opposition  of  the  Right  wing :  Lucifer  and  his  friends. 
Opposition  of  the  Left :  Auxentius  of  Milan  and  the  Danubian 
bishops.  Valens  and  the  formula  of  Ariminum.  Negotiations 
between  the  Homoiousians  and  Pope  Liberius.  The  question 
of  the  Holy  Spirit :  the  party  of  Macedonius.  The  Anomceans  : 
Aetius  and  Eunomius.  Conflicts  between  them  and  official 
Arianism.     The  historian   Philostorgius. 

Better  for  the  Church  is  a  government  which  ignores  or 
even  persecutes  it  than  a  government  which  interferes  too 
much  in  its  affairs.  Under  Constantius  the  care  of  the 
Faith  had  entered  more  than  it  ought  to  have  done  into 
the  province  of  the  State.  When  the  police  were  no 
longer  at  the  service  of  the  various  formulas,  and  at  the 
heels  of  the  bishops,  the  bishops  breathed  more  freely. 
The  bent  heads  were  raised,  and  the  attitudes  once  more 
became  natural. 

It  was  at  Paris  that  the  first  evidence  of  this  was  seen. 
The  episcopate  of  the  Gauls  had  in  the  last  few  years  gone 
through  many  trials.  The  Emperor  Constantius  had 
urged  the  bishops,  ever  since  the  year  353,  to  subscribe 
to  the  condemnation  of  Athanasius,  and  to  accept 
communion  with  the  bishops  of  his  court.  As  a  rule, 
they  had  yielded,  but  with  very  bad  grace.  If  some  of 
them    only   had    refused    their   signatures   and   accepted 

269 


270  AFTER  ARIMINUM  [ch.  x. 

exile,  as  did  the  Bishops  of  Treves,  Poitiers,  and  Toulouse, 
the  greater  part  had  seen  with  disapproval  the  acts  of 
violence  used  towards  their  colleagues.  The  Bishop  of  Aries, 
Saturninus,  the  instrument  of  the  emperor's  displeasure, 
was  kept  by  them  in  quarantine.  When  they  received 
from  Sirmium  the  formula  attributed  to  Hosius  (357), 
with  a  request  that  they  should  approve  it,  they  jibbed. 
The  Bishop  of  Agen,  Phoebadius,  wrote  to  attack  it. 
Signatures  were  refused,  and  they  renewed  the  excommuni- 
cation against  Saturninus.  Hilary,  who  was  exiled  in  the 
heart  of  Phrygia,  when  informed  of  this  state  of  things, 
warmly  congratulated  his  colleagues  on  their  attitude,  and 
endeavoured  to  arrange  an  understanding  between  them 
and  the  semi-orthodox  party,  of  which  Basil  of  Ancyra 
was  at  this  moment  leading  the  triumph.  This  is  the 
subject  of  his  book  on  The  Synods} 

Then  followed  the  Council  of  Ariminum,  where,  thanks 
to  the  pressure  put  upon  them  by  the  prefect  Taurus,  and 
to  the  intrigues  of  the  court  prelates,  the  bishops  of  the 
Gauls  allowed  themselves  to  be  led  like  the  rest  to  a 
deplorable  capitulation.  Even  the  firmest  among  them, 
Servasius  of  Tongres  and  Phoebadius  himself,  compromised 
themselves,  and  co-operated  either  directly  or  indirectly 
in  what  was  to  be  for  a  long  time  the  formula  of  the  Arian 
dissenters.  When  they  returned  home,  very  sad  at  heart, 
as  we  may  well  believe,  they  soon  heard  the  news  that 
Julian  had  been  proclaimed  Augustus,  and  that  the  high 
officials  of  Constantius,  notably  the  praetorian  prefect 
Florentius,  with  whom  they  had  much  more  to  do  than 
with  the  Caesar,  had  set  out  to  rejoin  their  master.  While 
these  things  were  happening,  Hilary  arrived^  with  news 
from  Constantinople,  and  letters  addressed  to  the  Western 
prelates  by  those  of  their  Greek  colleagues,  upon  whom 

^  Supra,  p.  234. 

-  Hilary  had  not  been  pardoned  ;  this  return  to  Gaul  was,  in  the 
intention  of  the  government,  only  a  change  of  exile.  They  held  that, 
being  dangerous  in  the  East,  he  would  be  less  so  in  his  own  country. 
This,  at  least,  is  what  Sulpicius  Severus  says,  Chron.  ii.  45  :  postremo 
quasi  discordiae  seminariurn  et  perturbator  Orientis  re  dire  ad  Gallias 
iubetur,  absque  exilii  indulgentia. 


p.  339]  COUNCIL  OF  PARIS,  360  271 

Eudoxius,  Acacius,  and  other  victors  of  the  day,  had  just 
been  showering  sentences. of  deposition.  A  meeting  was 
held  at  Paris,  probably  in  the  summer  of  360,  and  from 
thence  an  answer  was  despatched  to  the  Easterns  in  a 
letter^  full  of  sympathy,  which  censured  Auxentius, 
Ursacius,  Valens,  and  the  other  supporters  of  the  intrigues 
at  Ariminum,  as  well  as  the  successors  of  the  deposed 
bishops  and,  lastly,  Saturninus,  who  was  already  con- 
demned and  always  active  on  the  side  of  wrong.  They 
recognized,  in  accordance  with  the  explanations  of  the 
Easterns,  that  they  had  been  wrong  in  allowing  themselves 
to  be  deceived  ^  into  the  tacit  suppression  of  the  term 
"  essence  "  (ova-la) ;  henceforth,  they  promised  to  be  more 
strict. 

This  letter  represents  apparently  all  that  it  was 
possible  to  do  at  a  time  when  Constantius  was  still 
master  in  the  East,  and  there  was  nothing  to  show  that  he 
would  not  also  regain  the  mastery  in  the  West.  The 
orthodoxy  of  Nicaea  possessed  scarcely  any  representatives 
at  that  time.  Paulinus  and  Rhodanius  had  died  in  exile  ; 
Athanasius  had  disappeared.  In  Rome,  besides  the  fact 
that  the  political  situation  was  not  so  free  from  complexity 
as  in  Gaul,  Pope  Liberius,  who  owing  to  unknown 
circumstances  had  remained  aloof  from  the  affair  of 
Ariminum,  was  not  entirely  rehabilitated.  Hilary  could 
scarcely  think  of  relying  upon  him.  All  that  it  was 
possible  for  him  to  do  was  to  lead  back  the  bishops  of 
the  Gauls  into  the  right  path,  and  make  use  of  them  to 
support  the  remnant  in  the  East  whose  views  were 
orthodox.  The  attitude  adopted  at  the  Council  of  Paris 
was  a  repudiation  of  the  Council  of  Ariminum,  a  return 
to  the  position  as  it  was  before  that  assembly — the 
Nicene  party  in  the  West  in  alliance  with  the  quasi- 
orthodox  party  in  the  East  to  fight  against  Arianism. 
It  was  little  enough. 

The  position  grew  more  clearly  defined  in  362,  when 

^  Hil.  -Frao-.  hist,  xi, 

2  "  Cum  ex  litteris  vestris   in   usiae  silentio  fraudem   se  passam 
simplicitas  nostra  cognoscat." 


272  AFTER  ARIMINUM  [ch.  x. 

Julian,  who  had  become  sole  emperor,  had  thrown  over 
the  official  clergy,  and  recalled  the  exiles.  Athanasius 
returned  to  Alexandria,  Meletius  to  Antioch.  It  was  on 
February  21,  362,  that  the  Alexandrians  beheld  once  more 
their  indomitable  bishop,  after  six  years  of  absence  and  of 
outlawry.  Other  exiles,  recalled  by  the  same  decrees, 
found  themselves  for  the  moment  grouped  around  him. 
The  greater  part  of  them  were  Egyptians,  but  there  was 
also  one  bishop  from  Palestine,  Asterius  of  Petra,  who 
had  no  doubt  been  imprisoned  in  Egypt,  as  Lucifer  of 
Caliaris  (Cagliari)  and  Eusebius  of  Vercellae  had  been  in 
the  Thebaid. 

Lucifer,  a  man  of  ardent  soul  and  indomitable 
character,  had  passed  his  time  of  exile  in  writing 
pamphlets  of  extreme  violence.  They  were  all  aimed 
at  Constantius,  and  the  bishop  took  care  that  they  should 
reach  him.  The  Christian  Ahab  let  the  new  Elias 
have  his  say.  He  had  at  first  entrusted  Lucifer  to 
Eudoxius,  Bishop  of  Germanicia ;  when  Eudoxius  was 
transferred  to  Antioch,  Lucifer  was  sent  to  Eleutheropolis 
in  Palestine,  where  the  bishop,  Eutychius,  treated  him 
harshly.  Afterwards,  as  no  one  was  able  to  silence  him, 
he  was  finally  sent  to  the  recesses  of  the  Thebaid.  The 
mere  titles  of  his  writings  give  an  idea  of  his  state  of 
mind  :  "  No  agreement  with  heretics,"  "  Apostate  Kings," 
"  No  quarter  for  the  enemies  of  God,"  "  Let  us  die  for 
the  Son  of  God," 

Eusebius  was  not  less  firm  in  his  principles,  but  he 
knew  how  to  control  himself.  He  also  had  at  first  been 
placed  under  the  charge  of  an  Arian  bishop,  the  aged 
Patrophilus  of  Scythopolis,  who  made  incredible  efforts  to 
persuade  his  prisoner  to  enter  into  relations  with  him  ;  but 
the  Bishop  of  Vercellae  preferred  rather  to  die  of  hunger 
than  to  submit  to  contact  with  his  persecutors.^  As  a 
matter  of  fact,  he  did  very  nearly  succumb.  He  was 
removed   from    Scythopolis,  perhaps   after   the  death   of 

1  Letter  from  Eusebius  to  his  flock  in  Italy,  during  his  sojourn  at 
Scythopolis  (Migne,  P.  Z,.,  vol.  xii.,  p.  947). 


p.  341-2]        LUCIFER  AND  APOLLINARIS  273 

Patrophilus/   and   was    transferred    to    Cappadocia,   and 
finally  to  the  Thebaid. 

The  two  Latin  bishops  were  invited  by  Athanasius  to 
stay  at  Alexandria,  and  to  join  himself  and  his  council  in 
settling  certain  urgent  questions.  Lucifer  declined  the 
invitation,  but  sent  two  deacons  as  his  representatives. 
He  was  in  a  hurry  to  return  to  Antioch  where,  he  said,  the 
affairs  of  that  Church  required  his  presence.  He  was 
entreated  not  to  aggravate,  by  untimely  measures,  the 
troubles  which  divided  it.  He  promised  what  they  asked, 
but  with  such  a  man,  and  in  such  a  state  of  irritation,  there 
was  everything  to  fear. 

Two  other  persons,  also  absent,  caused  themselves  to 
be  represented  at  the  council,  the  Bishop  Apollinaris  of 
Laodicea  in  Syria,  and  the  priest  Paulinus,  head  of  the 
little  Eustathian  Church  of  Antioch.  Of  the  latter  body 
we  have  spoken  already.  It  now  remains  to  explain  the 
ecclesiastical  position  of  Apollinaris. 

Towards  the  end  of  the  3rd  century,  Alexandria  had 
provided  Laodicea  with  two  very  distinguished  bishops, 
Eusebius  and  Anatolius.^  Shortly  after  the  Council  of 
Nicaea,  another  Alexandrian,  the  grammarian  Apollinaris, 
took  up  his  abode  there,  after  having  taught  for  some  time 
at  Berytus.  He  met  with  a  good  reception,  and  was  even 
ordained  priest;  his  son,  called  like  himself  Apollinaris,  also 
entered  the  ranks  of  the  clergy,  in  the  capacity  of  a 
reader.  This  did  not  prevent  either  of  them  from 
continuing  the  cult  of  the  Muses;  they  even  pursued  it 
with  some  degree  of  exaggeration.  They  were  always 
to  be  seen  at  the  lectures  of  a  pagan  sophist,  named 
Epiphanius,^  and  their  example  brought  thither  many  of 
the  faithful.  The  Bishop  Theodotus  looked  upon  this 
with  a  disapproving  eye.  One  day,  Epiphanius  began  to 
recite  a  hymn  in  honour  of  Bacchus,  and,  according  to 

1  Patrophilus,  although  he  died  before  Constantius,  had  to  suffer 
from  the  pagan  reaction  under  Julian.  The  pagans  of  ScythopoHs 
disinterred  his  body,  scattered  his  bones,  and  made  a  lamp  of  his 
skull  {Chron.  Pasch.  a.  362). 

2  Vol.  i.,  pp.  354-5- 

^  Often  mentioned  by  Eunapius,  in  his  Lives  of  the  Philosophers. 
II  S 


274  AFTER  ARIMINUM  [ch.  x. 

custom,  he  began  by  enjoining  unbelievers  to  retire. 
No  one  stirred,  the  Christians  any  more  than  the  rest. 
Theodotus,  being  informed  of  this  scandal,  censured  the 
action  so  far  as  concerned  the  ordinary  Christians  present, 
but  he  took  rigorous  measures  against  the  two  Apollinarii  ; 
he  reprimanded  them  publicly,  and  excommunicated  them. 
The  culprits  gave  evidence  of  their  repentance,  did 
penance,  and  finally  the  bishop  pardoned  them.  Theo- 
dotus was  soon  succeeded  (about  335)  in  the  see  of 
Laodicea  by  a  priest  named  George,  also  an  Alexandrian, 
who  had  formerly  been  deposed  by  Bishop  Alexander,  and 
had  come  to  seek  his  fortune  in  Syria.  Theodotus  had 
been  one  of  the  first  defenders  of  Arius.  George  was,  or 
had  become,  more  moderate  in  his  theological  opinions  :  in 
358  we  find  him  among  the  opponents  of  Eudoxius  and 
of  the  Anomoean  party.  But  he  was  an  inveterate  enemy 
of  Athanasius.  At  the  Council  of  Sardica  he  appeared  on 
the  list  of  the  bishops  deposed  by  the  Westerns.  When, 
three  years  later,  Athanasius,  being  recalled  to  Alexandria 
in  spite  of  the  sentences  of  George  and  his  friends,  stopped 
at  Laodicea,  there  were  no  exchanges  of  courtesy  between 
them.^  The  two  Apollinarii,  on  the  other  hand,  made  a 
show  of  welcoming  to  their  home  the  outlaw  of  the 
Council  of  Tyre,  and  posed  henceforth  as  upholders  of 
Athanasius  and  of  Nicaea.  As  soon  as  Athanasius  was 
gone,  they  had  to  reckon  with  George,  who  excommuni- 
cated them  once  more.  This  time,  the  separation  was 
decisive.  But  the  moral  support  of  Athanasius  enabled 
them  to  resist  this  blow.  A  Nicene  party  was  organized 
around  them,  and  Apollinaris  the  younger  became  its 
bishop.  We  do  not  know  exactly  when,  but  it  was  probably 
after  the  death  of  George  and  of  Constantius,  for  we  can 
scarcely  conceive  that  in  the  lifetime  of  the  latter  such  a 
proceeding  could  have  been  risked.^ 

*  Athanasius  had  a  special  horror  of  George,  and  even  with  his 
own  party,  he  had  not  a  good  reputation.  ZiDf  do-wrws  ovk  'i\adev,  dWa 
Kai  wapa  tQ)v  oiKeiwv  KarayivdjcrKeTai,  rb  tAos  tov  ^tjv  /cat  tt]v  evdvfxiav  iv 
Toh  al(rxi'<^TOLS  fierpuv  (Athan.  De  fuga^  26). 

2  We  hear  no  more  of  George  after  the  Council  of  Seleucia  (in 
359).     The    Council   of   Constantinople   (360)    would    certainly   have 


p.  344]  RETURN  OF  THE  WAVERERS  275 

Thus  the  body  of  persons  united  or  represented,  in  362, 
round  Athanasius  was  exclusively  composed  of  pure 
Nicenes,  who  had  never  wavered,  and  who  on  that 
account  had  had  more  or  less  to  suffer  under  Constantius. 
They  fully  realized  that  they  and  those  of  their  opinion 
formed  but  a  very  feeble  minority  in  the  empire,  but  that, 
now  that  religious  liberty  was  restored,  many  others,  who 
had  not  exhibited  the  same  constancy,  would  be  desirous 
of  joining  them  and  resuming  the  old  tradition.  On  what 
conditions  ought  they  to  welcome  such  persons  ?  Here 
there  presented  itself  a  question  both  of  practice  and 
expediency,  precisely  analogous  to  that  raised  at  the  end 
of  the  persecutions  by  the  repentance  of  the  apostates. 
Already,  in  the  West,  Hilary  had  seen  no  objection  to 
associating  with  those  who  had  fallen  into  error  at 
Ariminum  as  soon  as  they  openly  disclaimed  their 
weakness.  A  like  solution  was  adopted  by  Athanasius, 
Eusebius,  and  the  rest.  They  decided  that  all  the  bishops 
of  orthodox  faith  from  whom  signatures  had  been  extorted, 
could,  on  repudiating  them,  still  be  maintained  in  their 
former  positions.  As  to  their  leaders,  they  should  be 
pardoned,  if  they  repented,  but  they  should  be  excluded 
from  the  ranks  of  the  clergy.^ 

This  measure  could  have  but  little  effect  outside  the 
West  and  Egypt.-  There,  all  or  very  nearly  all  were 
Nicenes  at  heart  and  supporters  of  Athanasius.  Violence 
alone  had  made  them  yield.  It  was  coming  to  an  end  : 
they  returned  quite  naturally  to  their  former  attitude,  like 

deposed  him,  if  he  had  been  still  living.  But  as  there  is  no  mention 
of  its  having  done  so,  there  is  ground  for  thinking  that  George  died 
about  that  time.  The  George  of  whom  St  Basil  speaks  {Ep.  251,  2)  in 
connection  with  the  Council  of  Constantinople  is  certainly  George  of 
Alexandria.  Philostorgius  (v.  i)  says  that  Acacius  of  Caesarea,  on 
returning  from  that  council,  ordained  bishops  for  the  vacant  sees  ; 
amongst  them  he  mentions  Pelagius  for  Laodicea.  Pelagius  was 
Bishop  of  Laodicea  in  363,  in  the  reign  of  Jovian.  It  would  be  in 
opposition  to  him,  therefore,  that  ApoUinaris  created  a  schism. 

1  Athan.  Ep.  ad  Riifmiafitnn. 

""  However,  there  were  in  Palestine,  in  the  island  of  Cyprus,  in 
Lycia,  in  Pamphylia  and  in  Isauria,  a  certain  number  of  supporters 
of  Athanasius. 


276  AFTER  ARIMINUM  [ch.  x. 

those  Christians,  whom  persecution  forced  into  sacrificing, 
but  whose  hearts,  in  no  way  separated  from  the  Church, 
returned  to  it  at  the  first  glimmer  of  peace.  In  Syria,  in 
Asia  Minor,  and  in  Thrace,  the  case  was  dififerent.  Nearly 
all  the  bishops  there  had  assailed  Athanasius  and  supported 
formulas  more  or  less  heterodox,  which  conflicted  one  with 
another,  but  agreed  at  least  in  passing  over  in  silence 
the  essential  formulas  of  Nicaea.  The  fact  that  Constantius 
was  no  longer  there  to  impose  the  Creed  of  Ariminum- 
Constantinople  did  not  entail  in  these  countries  the 
return  to  pure  orthodoxy.  They  reverted,  not  to  the 
position  of  325,  but  to  that  of  359. 

In  this  Eastern  world,  the  most  interesting  situation 
was  that  of  the  Church  of  Antioch,  as  much  on  account  of 
the  importance  of  the  town  as  of  the  complexity  of  the 
position. 

There  was  at  Antioch  a  group  of  Anomceans,  as 
determined  opponents  of  the  Council  of  Ariminum  as 
they  were  of  the  Council  of  Nicaea,  and  irreconcilable 
supporters  of  Aetius.  The  leaders  had  been  exiled  ;  the 
rest  did  not  enjoy,  under  Constantius,  the  right  of  holding 
assemblies.  After  them,  on  the  doctrinal  ladder,  came  the 
ofificial  Church,  attached  to  the  confession  of  Ariminum- 
Constantinople,  and  presided  over  by  the  aged  Euzoius, 
one  of  the  original  Arians,  who  had  retracted  under 
Constantine,  and  had  never  ceased  since  to  appear  in  the 
ranks  of  the  opportunists.  These,  at  the  time  of  Julian's 
accession,  kept  possession  of  the  Great  Church,  the 
cathedral  of  Antioch.  Next  came  the  orthodox  party, 
who  had  long  submitted,  and  down  to  the  time  of  Leontius 
inclusively  had  accepted  bishops  pleasing  to  the  court 
and  to  the  Arianizing  party,  without,  however,  abandon- 
ing anything  of  their  correctness  of  doctrine.  Rallied  at 
first  by  Flavian  and  Diodore,  they  had  accepted  with 
enthusiasm  the  election  of  Meletius,  and  remained  faithful 
to  him,  despite  the  fact  that  exile  had  separated  him  far 
from  them.  They  no  longer  took  part,  as  they  had  formerly 
done,  in  the  congregations  of  the  official  Church  ;  they 
formed  a  group  apart,  and  met  together  in  the  most  ancient 


p.  346-7]  PARTIES  AT  ANTIOCH  277 

church  in  Antioch — the  Apostolica,  the  Ancient,  the  Palaea 
(TraXam)  as  it  was  called — which  Constantine's  beautiful 
Basilica  had  robbed  of  its  rank  as  the  Cathedral.  Last 
of  all,  came  the  group  of  Paulinus,  separated  from  the 
ofificial  Church  for  a  very  much  longer  period  than  the 
preceding  one,  ever  since  the  deposition  of  Eustathius 
(about  330).  Between  these  two  varieties  of  orthodox 
Christians  there  were  several  shades  of  difference  in  regard 
to  formulas  :  the  first  held  to  the  three  hypostases,  the 
others  did  not  approve  of  this  mode  of  expression.  At 
bottom  they  were  in  agreement.  They  were  only  separated 
because  they  had  been  so,  because  circumstances  had  led 
them  to  live  apart  from  each  other  for  some  thirty  years. 
It  only  needed  a  little  tact  and  consideration  to  secure 
undoubtedly  a  complete  reconciliation  between  them. 
And  this  was  the  more  easy,  because  only  one  of  the  two 
parties  was  provided  with  a  bishop. 

The  council  held  by  Athanasius  devoted  itself  very 
seriously  to  this  situation.  The  only  one  of  its  documents 
which  has  come  down  to  us  is  a  letter  relating  to  the 
differences  at  Antioch. 

It  is  addressed,  so  far  as  its  form  goes,  to  the  Nicene 
bishops  who  happened  to  be  in  Antioch,  or  were  about 
to  go  there — Eusebius,  Lucifer,  Asterius,  Cymatius,'^  and 
Anatolius — but  in  reality  to  Paulinus  and  his  community. 
The  council  indicates  on  what  conditions  the  dissenting 
party  of  the  Palaea  (Meletians),  and  even  the  Arians,  may 
be  received  to  communion.  They  must  accept  the  Creed 
of  Nicaea,  and  condemn  those  who  say  that  the  Holy 
Spirit  is  a  creature,  a  being  separated  from  the  Essence 
of  Christ.2  That  was  all.  The  representatives  of  the 
council  were  to  admit  anyone  to  communion  who  would 
accept  this  programme,  and  to  unite  them  to  the  followers 

^  Cymatius  was  Bishop  of  Paltus,  a  small  port  on  the  Syrian  coast  ; 
it  was  more  than  twenty  years  since  the  Arians  had  deprived  him  of 
his  see  (Athan.  De  Juga.  3  ;  Hist.  Ar.  5).  As  to  Anatolius,  he  is 
styled,  at  the  end  of  the  letter,  Bishop  Ei'/3otas.  There  was  at  Berea  in 
Syria  a  bishop  called  Anatolius,  who  signed  in  363  a  letter  to  Jovian  ; 
but  he  did  not  belong  to  the  same  party  as  Cymatius  and  the  others. 

-  KriVjua  a.vo.1  ko.\  dirip-q/x^uov  iK  r-^j  ovcrlas  tov  XpiaroO. 


278  AFTER  ARIMINUM  [ch.  x. 

of  Paulinus.  Paulinus  himself  must  not  exact  anything 
more ;  above  all,  no  mention  was  to  be  made  of  a  spurious 
Creed  of  Sardica  in  which  the  unity  of  hypostasis  is 
affirmed.  This  Creed  had  been  presented  to  the  council, 
it  was  true,  but  it  was  rejected  by  it,  in  order  not  to  set  up 
any  rival  to  that  of  Nicaea,  the  only  one  which  ought  to  be 
recognized.  Besides,  Athanasius  and  his  supporters  had 
satisfied  themselves  that  those  who  spoke  of  tliree  hypostases 
were  in  agreement  with  those  who  only  acknowledged  one^ 
the  one  party  applying  the  term,  "hypostasis"  to  the 
Persons,  the  other  to  the  Divine  Essence. 

Another  dispute  was  beginning  to  divide  men's  minds 
at  Antioch  and  elsewhere.  It  was  the  prelude  to  the 
celebrated  controversies  of  the  5th  century  upon  the 
Incarnation  of  the  Son  of  God.  Some  seemed  to  admit 
only  a  moral  union  between  the  historic  Christ  and  the 
Divine  Word  ;  others  maintained  that  the  Word  exercised, 
in  Christ,  the  functions  of  a  thinking  soul  {yov<;\  The 
council  listened  to  representatives  of  each  opinion.^  It 
came  to  the  conclusion  that  everyone  was  really  agreed 
upon  two  points :  first,  that  the  Incarnation  was  quite  a 
different  thing  from  the  indwelling  of  the  Word  in  the 
soul  of  the  prophets,  and  secondly,  that  the  Saviour 
possessed  an  animate  body,  endowed  with  feeling  and 
intelligence.  Under  these  conditions,  there  was  no  occasion 
for  division.  All  these  questions,  moreover,  ought  to  be 
laid  on  one  side  that  they  might  adhere  to  the  faith  of 
Nicaea,  and  thus  restore  unity  to  the  Church. 

This  programme  of  doctrine  was  simple,  and  the  plan 
of  union  seemed  quite  natural.  There  were  in  Syria 
some  faithful  adherents  of  Nicaea  ;  it  was  these  who  ought 
to  form  the  rallying-point.  The  difficulty  was,  that  these 
Nicenes  were  very  few  in  number,  and  that  they  were 
represented  principally  by  the  two  Little  Churches  of 
Antioch  and   of  Laodicea,  hitherto  considered  as    schis- 

1  The  council  gives  no  names,  but  the  first  explanation  was 
understood  to  be  represented  at  Antioch  by  the  Meletian  priest 
Diodore,  the  other  by  Vitalis,  one  of  his  colleagues,  and  especially 
by  Apollinaris  of  Laodicea. 


p.  349]  COUNCIL  OF  ALEXANDRIA  279 

matical  by  the  bishops  of  the  country  and  by  the  generality 
of  the  faithful.  Instead  of  addressing  themselves  directly 
to  Meletius  and  Pelagius  and  negotiating  with  them  for  a 
collective  reunion,  the  council  tried  to  detach  from  them 
their  followers  in  order  to  rally  them  round  Paulinus  and 
Apollinaris.  It  was  a  fatal  error,  the  consequences  of 
which  made  themselves  felt  for  more  than  half  a  century 
at  Antioch,  and  for  very  much  longer  by  the  Church  at 
large. 

Perhaps,  Eusebius  and  Asterius  might  on  the  spot 
have  succeeded  in  understanding  this  situation,  and  in 
finding  some  remedy.  But  when  they  arrived  at  Antioch, 
they  found  the  position  seriously  changed  for  the  worse. 
Lucifer,  without  waiting  for  the  decision  at  Alexandria, 
had  compounded  with  Paulinus,  and  had  ordained  him 
Bishop  of  Antioch.  After  that  there  was  no  longer  any 
means  of  coming  to  an  understanding  with  Meletius, 
whether  by  recognizing  him  as  sole  bishop,  or  persuading 
him  to  renounce  the  bishopric  of  Antioch,  in  order  that 
they  might  proceed  in  concert  to  a  new  election.  Although 
deeply  grieved,  Eusebius  did  not  think  it  incumbent  on 
him  to  condemn  this  action  of  Lucifer.  He  recognized 
neither  Paulinus  ^  nor  Meletius,  and  returned  to  Italy, 
making  public,  on  his  way,  the  merciful  provisions  of  the 
Council  of  Alexandria  in  regard  to  those  who  had  fallen 
into  error  at  Ariminum,  As  to  Lucifer,  furious  at  the 
indirect  censure  entailed  upon  himself  by  the  action  of 
Eusebius,  and  embarrassed  by  the  adhesion  given  by  his 
deacons  to  Athanasius'  Council,  he  also  retired  from  the 
scene,  fortified  in  his  uncompromising  attitude  and  no 
longer  disposed  to  hold  communion  with  anybody. 
According  to  him,  by  accepting  the  repentance  of  the 
lapsed,  the  confessors  themselves  had  participated  in  their 
fall.  Certain  fanatics,  very  few  in  number,  adopted  the 
same  attitude. 

'  Paulinus  signed  the  Tome  of  Alexandria,  but  with  lengthy 
explanations.  Other  signatures  were,  no  doubt,  affixed  to  it.  We 
now  possess  only  that  of  Carterius,  Bishop  of  Antaradus,  long  ago 
deposed  by  the  Arians  (Athan.  De  fuga.  3  ;  Hist.  Ar.  5). 


280  AFTER  ARIMINUM  [en.  x. 

However,  the  severe  measures  of  Julian  soon  put  an 
end  to  these  private  quarrels.  We  have  seen  how 
Euzoi'us  was  treated  at  Antioch.  Athanasius  had  scarcely 
been  reinstalled,  when  the  emperor  ordered  him  to  be 
driven  out  upon  the  pretext  that  a  man  loaded  with 
condemnations  could  not  return  without  a  special  order ; 
and  further  that  it  was  all  very  well  for  the  exiled 
bishops  to  have  been  recalled,  but  it  was  not  lawful  for 
them  to  resume  their  official  duties.^  The  magistrates, 
however,  required  much  urging :  the  proceeding  was  too 
unpopular.  Julian  was  angry;  he  was  greatly  incensed 
against  Athanasius  who  had  dared  "  in  his  reign  to  baptize 
noble  ladies.'"-  The  prefect,  being  frightened,  submitted 
and  published  the  edict  of  proscription,  which  Athanasius 
immediately  obeyed  (October  21,  362).  Some  time  after 
two  priests,  Paul  and  Astericius,  were  exiled  on  the 
representations  of  some  influential  pagans.  A  petition 
addressed  to  the  emperor  in  favour  of  the  bishop  had 
no  other  result  but  to  draw  down  upon  those  who  had 
signed  it  a  very  severe  rating,  and  upon  Athanasius  an 
order  of  expulsion,  not  from  Alexandria  only  as  before, 
but  from  the  whole  of  Egypt.^ 

Athanasius  remained  in  concealment.  Everywhere  in 
the  East  Christians  had  several  trying  months  to  pass 
through.  On  August  18,  363,  the  news  of  Julian's  death 
was  published  at  Alexandria,  together  with  an  announce- 
ment of  the  accession  of  his  successor.  Athanasius  was 
at  Antinoe.  He  immediately  re-entered  Alexandria,  and, 
without  making  any  stay  there,  embarked  on  a  voyage 
to  Antioch. 

Jovian  had  hastened  to  recall  him  from  exile  by  a 
decree  couched  in  very  flattering  terms,  the  text  of  which 
has  been  preserved  * ;  he  gave  Athanasius  a  most  cordial 
welcome.  About  the  same  time  a  certain  number  of 
bishops  belonging  to  Syria  and  Asia  Minor,  headed  by 
Meletius  and  Acacius  of  Caesarea,  were  collecting  at 
Antioch  to  discuss  the  situation.     Finally,  Basil  of  Ancyra 

'  Julian,  Ep.  26.  -  Ep.  6,  to  the  prefect  Ecdicius. 

■'  Ep.  51.  ^  Migne,  P.  G.,  vol.  xxvi.,  p.  813. 


p.  351-2]  JOVIAN  AND  ATHANASIUS  281 

and  his  party  ^  sent  a  petition  there.  The  new  emperor, 
beginning  a  reign  which  opened  so  sadly,  found  himself 
as  a  climax  to  his  trials  involved  in  theological  disputes. 
He  had  no  intention  of  bringing  together  in  one  assembly 
all  this  crowd  of  bishops.  Athanasius  presented  him  with 
a  memorial  in  which  he  commended  the  Creed  of  Nicaea 
to  the  exclusion  of  all  others,  with  one  small  addition 
relating  to  the  Holy  Spirit.  Acacius,  Meletius,  and  their 
section  also  declared  to  him  that  the  best  thing  to  do 
was  to  adhere  to  the  faith  of  Nicaea ;  however,  they  went 
on  to  explain  that  if  the  term  Jwmoousios  had  excited 
scruples,  it  was  because  people  had  not  at  first  seen  clearly 
what  it  meant,  namely,  that  the  Word  proceeds  from  the 
Essence  of  the  Father,  and  is  like  to  Him  in  Essence.- 
The  HomoTousians,  who  were  not  present  in  person, 
demanded  either  a  return  to  the  first  decisions  of  Ariminum 
and  of  Seleucia — those  before  the  capitulations,  i.e.,  a  return 
to  the  houioousios  and  the  Jiouioiousios — or  that  all  should 
be  granted  freedom  to  hold  religious  meetings. 

The  proceedings  of  these  last  two  groups  prove  in 
short  that  the  fusion  had  taken  place  between  the  two 
shades  of  doctrine.  The  sympathy  of  Hilary  and  of 
Athanasius  for  the  opinions  of  Basil,  Eustathius,  Eleusius, 
and  others  was  clearly  shown  at  the  Council  of  Paris  first, 
and  afterwards  at  that  of  Alexandria.  We  cannot  say 
that  the  hovio'iotisios  had  triumphed  over  the  Jwinoousios. 
The  Nicene  term  was  in  no  way  ousted  ;  it  was  even  it 
which  prevailed  to  the  exclusion  of  the  other.  But  the 
idea   which    the   /louio'iousios    accentuated    was   admitted, 

^  Socrates  {H.  E.  iii.  25)  mentions  Basil  of  Ancyra,  Silvanus  of 
Tarsus,  Sophronius  of  Pompeiopolis  (in  Paphlagonia),  Pasinicus  of 
Zela,  Leontius  of  Comana,  Callicrates  of  Claudiopolis,  Theophilus  of 
Castabala.  This  is  the  last  time  we  hear  of  Basil  of  Ancyra.  The 
subject  of  the  letter  is  badly  described  by  Socrates.  Sozomen 
(vi.  4)  gives  a  detailed  analysis  of  it. 

'  This  explanation  appeared  suspicious  to  Paulinus  and  his  party. 
It  was  clearly  from  this  quarter  that  there  originated  the  protest 
entitled  "Refutation  of  the  hypocrisy  of  Meletius  and  Eusebius  of 
Samosata,"  which  is  preserved  in  the  appendices  to  St  Athanasius 
(P.  (J.,  vol.  xxviii.,  p.  85). 


282  AFTER  ARIMINUM  [ch.  x. 

under  another  formula — that  of  the  three  hypostases — as 
a  useful  and  even  necessary  explanation  of  the  honwousios. 
Orthodoxy  thus  expressed  was  that  soon  to  be  repre- 
sented by  Basil  of  Caesarea  and  his  friends,  Gregory  of 
Nazianzus,  Gregory  of  Nyssa,  and  Amphilochius  of 
Iconium. 

But  if  there  was  a  tendency  to  a  rapprocJienieyit  between 
doctrines,  it  was  not  so  with  regard  to  persons.  There 
was  a  fine  opportunity  for  reconciliation  when,  in  October 
363,  Athanasius  came  into  contact  at  Antioch  with 
Meletius,  Acacius,  and  the  rest.  The  overture  of  peace 
was  made  by  the  Bishop  of  Alexandria ;  he  held  out 
his  hand  to  the  representatives  of  that  Eastern  episcopate 
which  had  persecuted  him  for  thirty  years.  Acacius  and 
his  friends  had  the  bad  taste  to  stand  upon  their  dignity, 
and  not  to  accept  at  once  a  reconciliation  so  desirable, 
Athanasius,  deeply  grieved,  re-embarked  without  having 
been  admitted  to  communion  with  them.^ 

The  favour  of  Jovian  was  plainly  bestowed  upon  all 
these  representatives  of  the  orthodoxy,  whether  of  yester- 
day or  to-morrow.  In  a  pre-eminent  degree  Athanasius 
was  his  favourite.  None  the  less  he  refrained  from 
taking  a  side,  and  demanded  only  one  thing — peace.  We 
cannot  see  that  he  ever  did  anything  to  disturb  Eudoxius, 
Euzoius,  and  other  representatives  of  the  settlement 
of  Ariminum-Constantinople.  They  found  themselves 
diminished  in  number  by  the  defection  of  Acacius  and 
his  section,  who  had  passed  all  at  once  over  to  the  side 
of  the  Council  of  Nicaia.  The  positions  which  they  had, 
they  kept ;  they  retained  in  particular  the  important  sees 
of  Antioch  and  Constantinople  which  were  long  to  remain 
in  their  possession.  The  Anomoeans  in  the  same  way 
were  not  interfered  with.  The  Arians  of  Alexandria, 
with  a  certain  Lucius  at  their  head,  made  an  attempt 
to  secure  the  ear  of  the  emperor  and  to  excite  him 
against  Athanasius.  They  wasted  their  time  and  were 
even  dismissed  with  some  manifestation  of  displeasure.^ 

1  Basil,  Ep.  89,  258. 

2  See  the  very  curious  records  of  their  interviews  with  the  emperor 


p.  354]  VALENTINIAN  AND  VALENS  283 

During  his  brief  stay  in  Antioch/  the  new  emperor 
had  hardly  time  to  go  very  deeply  into  these  questions. 
He  set  out  for  Constantinople  but  died  on  the  way, 
on  February  17,  364,  and  was  immediately  replaced 
(February  26)  by  Valentinian,  an  officer  of  his  guard, 
who  like  him  had  been  harassed  in  the  reign  of  Julian 
for  his  religious  opinions.  Valentinian,  on  his  arrival 
in  Constantinople,  associated  his  brother  Valens  with 
himself  (March  28),  and  entrusted  him  with  the  govern- 
ment of  the  East,  with  the  same  area  as  had  been 
possessed  by  Licinius  (314-323),  and  by  Constantius 
(337-350).  Thus,  there  was  once  more  an  Emperor  of 
the  West  and  an  Emperor  of  the  East.  If  both  main- 
tained practically  the  same  attitude  towards  paganism, 
they  did  not  agree  as  to  the  course  to  be  pursued  in 
face  of  the  parties  which  divided  the  Christian  Church. 

Valentinian,  like  Jovian,  was  personally  attached  to 
the  faith  of  Nicaea,  so  far  as  a  soldier  whose  first  thought 
was  his  profession  and  his  career,  could  have  a  preference 
in  that  kind  of  thing.  He,  too,  wished  before  everything 
for  peace.  He  had  not  the  slightest  intention  that  this 
peace  should  be  disturbed  for  the  sake  of  disputes  about 
creeds,  nor  a  fortiori  \\\2X  the  civil  power  should  be  made 
to  take  part  in  these  questions.  His  attitude  much  re- 
sembles that  of  the  Emperor  Constans.  If,  during  the 
last  months  of  the  year  363,  the  attitude  of  Jovian  had 
given  rise  to  some  hope  of  an  official  restoration  of 
the  Council  of  Nicrea,  Valentinian  for  his  part  opened 
up  but  moderate  prospects.  Some  significant  words,  soon 
translated  into  definite  actions,  taught  the  religious  world 
that  it  must  rely,  not  upon  the  emperor,  but  solely  on 
itself,  and  that  before  all  things,  it  must  arrange  its 
affairs  in  such  a  manner  as  not  to  compromise  public 
order. 

annexed  to  the  letter  of  St  Athanasius  to  Jovian  (Migne,  P.  G.,  vol. 
xxvi.,  p.  820). 

'  Scarcely  a  month  ;  he  was  at  Edessa  on  September  27  ;  and  by 
November  12  we  find  him  at  Mopsuestia  on  his  way  to  Constantinople 
{Cod.  Theod.  vii.  4,  9  ;  xi.  20,  i). 


284  AFTER  ARIMINUM  [ch.  x. 

The  position  in  the  West  was,  generally  speaking, 
simple  enough.  In  the  year  360,  the  bishops  of  the  Gauls, 
assembled  in  Paris,  had,  at  Hilary's  instigation,  settled 
matters  as  they  were  to  be  settled  two  years  later  at 
Alexandria  by  Athanasius  and  Eusebius  of  Vercellas. 
Pope  Liberius  who,  as  we  have  seen,  had  had  no  share  in 
the  Council  of  Ariminum,  hastened  for  his  own  part  also 
to  make  use  of  the  new  liberty,  in  order  to  quash  the 
decisions  of  that  assembly.  Like  Hilary,  he  conceded 
that  their  position  should  be  preserved  to  those  bishops 
who  should  rehabilitate  themselves  by  adherence  to  the 
Creed  of  Nicaea.^  On  hearing  what  had  been  done  at 
Alexandria,  the  bishops  of  Greece  and  of  Macedonia  ^ 
declared  themselves  to  the  same  purpose :  Pope  Liberius 
wrote  to  the  Italian  bishops,=^  and  they,  in  their  turn,  to 
those  of  Illyria.'*  Councils  were  held  in  Gaul,  Spain,  and 
almost  everywhere.  The  Western  episcopate  breathed 
again  and  resumed  its  normal  attitude,  which  had  been 
completely  upset  by  the  interference  of  the  Emperor 
Constantius  and  the  prelates  of  his  court. 

The  centres  of  opposition  were  very  few  indeed.  There 
were  two  of  them,  one  on  the  Right  wing,  as  we  should  say, 
and  one  on  the  Left.  The  opposition  from  the  Right 
were  represented  by  Lucifer,  who  returned  from  the  East 
in  a  humour  of  inflexible  obstinacy,  and  refused  absolutely 
any  relations  with  those  who  had  erred  at  Ariminum,  and 
with  those  who  accepted  their  repentance.  He  shut 
himself  up  in  his  own  diocese  of  Caliaris  (Cagliari),  "con- 
tenting himself  with  his  own  communion."  His  attitude 
was  imitated  in  Spain  by  the  Bishop  of  Illiberris  (Granada), 
a  certain  Gregory,  who  even  before  the  Council  of 
Ariminum  had  found  himself  in  conflict  with  Hosius.^     In 

^  Jaffe  220,  a  lost  letter,  but  presupposed  by  that  contained  in  the 
twelfth  Fragment  of  St  Hilary  (J.  223) ;  cf.  J.  255,  a  decretal  of 
Siricius,  c.  i. 

^  Basil,  Ep.  204,  5  ;  cf.  Athan.  ad  Rufin.,  and  J.  223. 

2  Jafifi6  223. 

*  Hil.  Frag.  hist.  xii. 

^  Upon  this  affair,  see  the  narrative  (strongly  coloured  and  already 
containing  legendary  elements)  in  the  Libellus  precum  Marcellmi  et 


p.  357]         THE  RIGHT  AND  LEFT  WINGS  285 

Rome,  several  persons  held  the  same  opinions ;  they 
rallied  round  the  deacon  Hilary,  the  man  whom  Liberius 
had  sent  with  Lucifer  to  the  Council  of  Milan.  Like 
Lucifer,  he  had  just  returned  from  exile.  He  was  the 
most  uncompromising  of  all,  for  he  even  went  so  far  as 
to  require  that  the  transgressors  of  Ariminum  and  their 
supporters  should  be  subjected  to  a  second  baptism. 

On  the  Left  there  were  several  determined  Arians.  In 
Gaul,  we  hear  of  Saturninus  of  Aries  and  Paternus  of 
Perigueux  ;  Hilary  succeeded  in  obtaining  their  deposition, 
and  it  appears  that  these  sentences  were  carried  out.  In 
Milan,  Auxentius  still  held  his  own.  Eusebius  and  Hilary 
set  themselves  to  dislodge  the  Cappadocian  intruder  from 
his  see.^  But  they  had  to  deal  with  one  who  was  more 
than  their  match.  The  former  bishop,  Dionysius,  whom 
Auxentius  had  replaced,  had  died  in  exile :  hence 
Auxentius  had  no  Catholic  rival.  Moreover,  he  was  a 
clever  man  ;  he  had  almost  been  accepted  at  Milan.  The 
Emperor  Valentinian  had  just  arrived  in  that  city ;  and 
everyone  knew  that  he  did  not  like  clamour.  But  Hilary 
and  Eusebius  could  not  forego  making  it.  Their  only 
method  of  action  was  an  uprising  of  the  populace  against 
the  bishop.  At  the  first  outburst,  an  imperial  edict  com- 
manded silence;  then,  as  Hilary  continued  to  protest, 
treating  Auxentius  as  a  blasphemer  and  an  enemy  of 
Christ,  Valentinian  ordered  the  quaestor  and  the  Master  of 
the  Offices,  assisted  by  about  ten  bishops,  to  hold  an  inquiry 
on  this  point.  Auxentius  began  by  declaring  that  there 
was  no  occasion  to  go  back  on  the  decisions  arrived  at 
by  six  hundred  bishops,^  and  especially  at  the  request  of 
persons  who  had  been  condemned  for  the  last  ten  years.^ 

Faustini  (Collectio  Avellana,  No.  2,  p.  14  (Ed.  Giinther)  ;  cf.  Migne, 
P.  Z.,  vol.  xiii.,  p.  89).  Letter  from  Eusebius  of  Vercelte  to  Gregory 
(about  360)  in  Hil.  Frag.  hist.  xi. 

^  Valentinian  spent  at  Milan  the  last  two  months  of  364,  and  the 
following  year  until  the  autumn.  It  was  during  that  time  that  the 
conflict  took  place  between  Auxentius  and  St  Hilary. 

^  That  is,  the  councils  of  Ariminum  and  Seleucia  added  together 
and  considered  as  favourable,  en  masse,  to  the  theology  of  Auxentius. 

•*  Hilary  and  Eusebius. 


286  AFTER  ARIMINUM  [ch.  x. 

However,  since  the  emperor  insisted  on  it,  he  did  not 
hesitate  to  declare  that  Christ  was  truly  God,  of  the  same 
Divinity  and  Substance  as  God  the  Father.^  He  was 
made  to  repeat  this  profession  of  faith,  quite  unexpected 
from  the  lips  of  a  notorious  Arian ;  he  was  even  required 
to  put  it  in  writing.  He  did  so,  but  his  edition  of  it  was 
so  cleverly  put  together  that  it  was  capable  of  meaning 
the  contrary  to  what  he  had  been  made  to  say.'^  Hilary 
perceived  the  equivocation,  and  protested  energetically. 
But  the  emperor  showed  himself  satisfied,  accepted  com- 
munion with  Auxentius,  and  commanded  Hilary  to  leave 
Milan.  The  intrepid  bishop  was  obliged  to  abandon  the 
struggle ;  but  he  did  not  do  so  without  a  solemn  warning 
to  the  people  of  Milan  that  their  bishop  was  an  ill-disguised 
heretic,  and  they  should  flee  from  him  as  they  would 
Antichrist.^  Eusebius,  who  in  this  business  had  only 
played  the  second  part,  had  already  left  Milan.  He 
confined  himself  henceforth  to  the  care  of  his  enormous 
diocese,  which  included  the  whole  of  the  present  Piedmont, 
as  far  as  the  Alps,  and  even  beyond.  Auxentius,  on  his 
part,  contented  himself  with  governing  his  Church  of 
Milan,  without  posing  as  a  party  leader.  Besides,  he 
seems  to  have  been,  in  Italy,  the  sole  representative  of  the 
tradition  of  Ariminum  ;  we  hear  no  more  of  Epictetus, 
the  Arian  Bishop  of  Centumcellae,  so  disgracefully  involved 
in  the  affair  of  Pope  Liberius  ;  he  was  no  doubt  dead. 

By  way  of  retaliation,  in  Pannonia  and  in  the  Latin 
provinces  of  the  Lower  Danube,  the  episcopal  body 
remained  faithful  to  their  attitude  in  the  time  of  the 
Emperor  Constantius.  Ursacius  and  Valens  always 
possessed  much  influence  there  ;  Germinius  still  held  the 
most  important  episcopal  see,  that  of  Sirmium.  The 
orthodox  party,  in  these  countries,  had  a  hard  life.  St 
Martin,   who   belonged   to    Pannonia,  visited    about   that 

1  Christum  Deuin  veriim  et  unius  cutn  Deo  Patre  divinitatis  ct 
substantiae  est professus  (Hil.  Adv.  Aux.  7). 

^  Christum  attte  omnia  saecula  et  ante  omne  principiiim  7iaiiim  ex 
Patre  Deutn  verum  filiiim  ex  Deo  Patre  {Ibid.  14).  According  as  one 
puts  a  comma  before  or  after  verum.,  the  sense  is  Arian  or  Catholic. 

^  This  is  the  subject  of  his  Liber  contra  Auxcntium. 


p.  359]  GERMIMUS  OF  SIRMIUM  287 

time  his  native  country  of  Sabaria.  A  disciple  of  St 
Hilary,  he  did  not  hesitate  to  declare  his  orthodox 
opinions,  and  to  protest  against  the  heresy  taught  by  the 
clergy.  He  was  beaten  with  rods,  and  driven  from  the 
town.^  At  Sirmium,  three  Catholics,  Heraclian,  Firmian, 
and  Aurelian  were  imprisoned  for  the  same  reason.  We 
still  possess  a  curious  record  ^  of  their  appearance  before 
Bishop  Germinius,  and  of  the  dispute  between  Heraclian 
and  the  bishop.  The  document  is  dated  January  13,  366. 
"  It  is  Eusebius,"  said  the  bishop,  "that  returned  exile,  and 
Hilary,  who  has  also  been  in  exile,  who  have  put  these  ideas 
into  thy  head."  And  as  Heraclian  tried  to  defend  himself, 
Germinius  said:  "See  what  a  long  tongue  he  has.  You 
will  not  be  able  to  break  his  teeth."  Immediately,  a 
deacon  and  a  reader  flew  at  the  accused  and  struck  him 
in  the  face.  However,  the  conversation  was  resumed : 
"  Tell  me,  Heraclian — it  was  I  who  baptized  thee ;  how 
didst  thou  receive  baptism  ?  "  Heraclian  answered  :  "  You 
gave  it  me,  in  the  Name  of  the  Father,  of  the  Son, 
and  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  not  in  the  name  of  one  God 
who  is  greater  and  one  God  who  is  lesser  and  created." 
This  Heraclian  was  well  known  in  Sirmium  ;  he  had  in 
former  days  opposed  Photinus.  Germinius  at  bottom  did 
not  wish  him  much  harm.  He  tried  to  win  him  over  to  his 
own  side,  even  pretending  that  he  had  had  an  explanation 
in  regard  to  his  faith  with  Eusebius,  who  had  declared 
himself  satisfied.  At  the  end  of  the  audience,  the  clergy 
of  Germinius  spoke  of  indicting  the  dissentients  before  the 
Governor  (Consularis)  of  Pannonia,  and  demanding  their 
heads.  The  bishop  contented  himself  with  presenting  to 
them  the  Creed  of  Ariminum  and,  when  they  refused  to 
sign  it,  with  giving  them  his  blessing,  to  receive  which 
they  consented  to  bow  their  heads. 

Perhaps    there   was  some   element   of  truth  in    what 

1  Sulpicius  Severus,  Vifa  Martini,  4  ;  Auxentius  also  drove  him 
from  Milan. 

2  Altercatio  Heraclia7ii  laid  cum  Gerviiyno  episcopo  Sirmiensi 
published  by  C.  P.  Caspari,  Kirchenhistorische  Anecdota  (Christiania, 
1883),  p.  133. 


288  AFTER  ARIMINUM  [ch.  x. 

Germinius  told  them  of  his  communications  with  Eusebius 
of  Vercellae.  He  did  not  go  so  far  as  the  others ;  his 
ideas  seem  to  have  somewhat  resembled  those  of  Basil 
of  Ancyra.  We  still  possess  a  formula,^  which  he  drew  up, 
apparently  shortly  after  the  affair  of  Heraclian.  Without 
employing  the  term  substance,  he  teaches  in  this  the  like- 
ness in  Divinity,  splendour,  majesty,  power,  etc.,  and  in 
everything,  per  omnia  siviilein.  This  language  disturbed 
the  Arians.  Valens  and  another  bishop,  called  Paul, 
demanded  explanations.  Germinius  began  by  not  giving 
any,  confining  himself  to  saying  that  he  remained  united 
in  heart  with  his  colleagues.  Still,  they  were  not  satisfied. 
Four  of  them,  Ursacius,  Valens,  Paul,  and  Gaius,^  meeting 
at  Singidunum,  insisted  ^  upon  his  retraction  of  the  per 
omnia  simileni.  But  the  Bishop  of  Sirmium  held  his 
ground.  He  wrote  to  another  group  of  bishops  in  the 
district^  to  explain  his  doctrine  to  them,  and  to  protest 
against  Ursacius  and  his  three  colleagues.  He  knew  at 
first  hand,  he  said,  exactly  what  had  been  agreed  upon 
before  the  Council  of  Ariminum,  because  he  was  present 
at  the  preliminary  conference,  at  which  the  formula  of 
agreement  had  been  discussed.  It  was  Mark  of  Arethusa 
who  had  held  the  pen :  and  it  certainly  tolerated  the 
words,  Filium  simileni  Patri  per  omnia. 

While  in  the  West  they  were  thus  returning  to  the 
faith  of  Nicaea,  and  the  fires  of  opposition  were  decreasing 
or  gradually  cooling  down,  the  Eastern  empire  continued 
to  pass  from  one  crisis  to  another.  We  have  already  seen 
that  in  Western  Asia  Minor  and  the  neighbouring 
districts  a  good  many  bishops,  united  round  Basil  of 
Ancyra   and    Eleusius   of  Cyzicus,   professed   a   doctrine 

1  Hil.  Frag.  hist.  xiii. 

"  This  Gaius  had  played  a  part  at  the  Council  of  Ariminum  by  the 
side  of  Ursacius  and  Valens  (Hil.  Frag.  hist.  vii.  4  ;  viii.  2,  5  ;  x.  i.). 

^  Hil.  Frag.  hist.  xiv. 

*  Hil.  Frag.  hist.  xv.  Those  to  whom  it  is  addressed  are : 
Rufianus,  Palladius,  Severinus,  Nichas,  Heliodorus,  Romulus., 
Mucianus,  and  Stercorius.  The  Palladius  here  named  is  doubtless 
the  Bishop  of  Ratiaria,  who  will  be  heard  of  again  in  the  time  of 
St  Ambrose. 


p.  362]  COUNCTI.  OF  LAMPSACUS  289 

equivalent  on  the  whole,  apart  from  certain  qualifications, 
to  the  orthodoxy  of  Nicaea.  Persecuted  and  exiled,  in 
360,  by  the  exertions  of  the  official  clergy,  that  is  to  say 
of  more  or  less  avowed  Arians  who  sheltered  themselves 
behind  the  confession  of  Ariminum,  they  profited  in  their 
turn  from  the  circumstances  of  the  time.  Already  they 
had  sent  their  profession  of  faith  to  Jovian.  At  the 
moment  when  Valentinian,  escorted  back  by  his  brother 
Valens,  was  leaving  Constantinople  for  the  West,  they 
sent  as  a  deputation  to  him  Hypatian,  the  Bishop  of 
Heraclea  in  Thrace,  to  ask  for  permission  to  assemble 
in  council.^  Valentinian  declared  that  he  saw  no  objec- 
tion. They  therefore  met  together  at  Lampsacus,  on  the 
Hellespont.  As  the  result  of  these  deliberations  which 
lasted  for  two  months,  there  issued  a  new  condemnation 
of  the  Council  of  Ariminum-Constantinople,  its  formulas 
and  its  decisions  against  individuals.  They  proclaimed 
once  more  the  hovio'iousios,  necessary,  as  they  said,  to 
indicate  the  distinction  between  the  Divine  Persons ;  and 
the  Dedication  Creed  of  Antioch  was  canonized  afresh. 
They  also  took  measures  with  a  view  to  ensuring,  without 
the  assistance  of  the  government,  the  restoration  of  those 
bishops  who  had  been  superseded  in  their  sees  as  a 
consequence  of  the  council  of  360.  Eudoxius  and  his 
followers  were  invited  to  rejoin  them,  retracting  of  course 
all  that  they  had  done  contrary  to  the  opinions  of  the 
present  council. 

The  Bishop  of  Constantinople,  as  no  one  could  doubt, 
was  not  a  man  to  submit  to  be  condemned  without 
defending  himself.  He  had  forestalled  his  opponents, 
and  his  credit  was  already  assured  with  the  Emperor 
Valens  when  the  latter  saw  the  arrival  of  the  delegates 
from  the  Council  of  Lampsacus.  They  were  unfavourably 
received.  Valens  exhorted  them  to  come  to  an  under- 
standing with  Eudoxius.  He  had  taken  up  his  position, 
and  was  determined  to  consider  as  official  the  doctrine  of 
the  Council  of  Ariminum.     This,  at  first  sight,  may  seem 

'  The  best  account  is  that  of  Sozomen,  H.  E.  vii.  7,  who  here 
reproduces  for  us  the  documents  of  Sabinus  better  than  Socrates. 
II  T 


290  AFTER  ARIMINUM  [ch.  x. 

extraordinary.     It   would   have  been  more  natural,  so   it 
seems,  that   Valens  should   have  acted  like  his  brother, 
and    preserved    neutrality   amidst    the   various    Christian 
confessions.      Still,  for  Valentinian  the  problem  was  far 
more  simple  than  for  him.     In  the  West— save  at  Milan, 
where  the  dispute  had  been  cut  short  in  the  way  we  have 
seen — the    differences  of  confession    did   not   entail   any 
serious   discord.      There   was   no    Catholic   rival   against 
Ursacius   or   Germinius,  any   more  than    there  was  any 
Arian  rival  against  Eusebius  or  Hilary.     It  was  not  so 
in  the  East.     There,  the  division  of  the  parties  had  given 
rise   in   many   places   to    local    schisms;    several  bishops 
disputed  among   themselves  the  same  see.     Valens  may 
have  thought   that   the  public  welfare  required   that   he 
should    take   a   side,   and    adopt    one   of  the   conflicting 
confessions.     That  of  Nicaea  had  up  to  that  time  scarcely 
had  any  supporters  but  the  Egyptians.     In  the  reign  of 
Jovian,  it  is  true,  a  certain  number  of  bishops  of  Syria  or 
Asia  Minor  had  signed  the  Nicene  formulary.     But  they 
still  remained  on  distant  terms  with  Athanasius  and  his 
followers.     In  Asia  Minor,  there  had  just  been  witnessed 
the  coalition  against   Eudoxius  of  all   the  opponents  of 
Anomoeanism,  but  amongst  the  party  thus  formed  there 
still  existed  distrust  of  the  houioousios.     As  a  formula  of 
conciliation    between   so    many    dissenting    factions    the 
Creed    of    Nicaea   was    scarcely    recommended.      Valens 
thought  it  preferable  to  make  up  his  mind  in  favour  of 
that   of  Ariminum,  of  which   the  official  ratification  was 
still  fresh,  while  those  who  professed  it  occupied  the  great 
sees  of  Constantinople  and  Antioch,  not  to  speak  of  many 
others.     It  was  in  this  way  that  support  was  continued  to 
the  tradition  of  Constantius. 

In  the  spring  of  365  appeared  an  edict,  commanding 
all  the  bishops  who  had  been  deposed  under  Constantius 
and  reinstated  under  Julian,  to  withdraw  once  more.  This 
edict  was  published  at  Alexandria  on  May  4.  It  imposed 
a  fine  of  300  pounds  in  gold  upon  the  municipal  authorities 
who  should  fail  to  obey  it.  The  Alexandrians  pleaded  as 
a  ground  of  exception  the  peculiar  position  of  Athanasius. 


p.  364]     ATHANASIUS  FINALLY  RESTORED         291 

It  appeared  that  the  author  of  his  last  expulsion  was  not 
Constantius  but  Julian,  and  that  the  last  decree  for  his 
recall  bore  the  name  of  Jovian.  The  prefect  temporized, 
for  the  populace  were  weary  of  all  these  intrigues. 
Athanasius  on  his  part  offered  no  resistance,  and  withdrew 
(October  5).  Finally,  it  was  decided  to  recall  him  once 
more.  On  February  i,  ^66,  an  imperial  notary  formally 
reinstated  him  in  the  Church  of  Dionysius.  This  was 
the  last  time.  In  the  following  year,  it  is  true,  Lucius 
attempted  to  show  himself  in  Alexandria,  and  to  pose  as 
a  rival ;  but  he  had  scarcely  arrived,  when  he  was  nearly 
torn  to  pieces  :  the  police  had  great  difficulty  in  saving 
his  life,  and  sending  him  back  to  Palestine.  Athanasius 
remained  master  of  the  field  of  battle.  After  forty  years 
of  struggle,  the  old  warrior  was  to  spend  in  peace  the  few 
years  which  remained  to  him  of  life. 

Meletius  at  Antioch  was  evicted,^  as  Athanasius  had 
been.  Paulinus,  being  of  less  importance,  was  left 
undisturbed.  He  was  on  fairly  good  terms  with  Euzoius, 
who  was  henceforth  the  official  bishop  of  the  metropolis  of 
the  East. 

However,  the  Homoiousians  of  the  Council  of 
Lampsacus  did  not  resign  themselves  to  their  dis- 
comfiture. Being  repulsed  by  the  Emperor  Valens, 
they  decided  to  appeal  to  his  colleague  the  Emperor 
Valentinian  and  to  the  bishops  of  the  West.^  It  was  the 
course  adopted  by  Athanasius,  twenty  years  before.  The 
bishops  of  Asia  assembled  at  Smyrna  ;  other  meetings 
took  place  in  Lycia,  in  Pamphylia,  and  in  Isauria.^     Three 

'  Meletius  was  three  times  driven  from  Antioch  ;  this  is  expressly 
mentioned  in  his  funeral  oration  by  St  Gregory  of  Nyssa  (Migne, 
P.  G.,  vol.  xlvi.,  p.  857).  The  first  exile  is  that  which  followed  almost 
immediately  his  election  in  361  ;  the  third  that  which  lasted  till  the 
death  of  Valens  (378)  ;  we  are  not  quite  certain  where  to  place  the 
second,  perhaps  in  Julian's  reign,  perhaps  under  Valens,  in  which  case 
Meletius  would  have  been,  like  Athanasius,  first  driven  out,  and  then 
recalled.     Later  on,  he  would  then  have  been  driven  out  again. 

2  Socrates,  iv.  12  ;  Sozomen,  vi.  10,  11. 

^  These  southern  provinces  of  Asia  Minor  are  mentioned  several 
times  by  St  Athanasius  as  containing  bishops  in  communion  with  him. 


292  AFTER  ARIMINUM  [ch.  x. 

delegates  were  chosen  :  Eustathius  of  Sebaste,  Silvanus  of 
Tarsus,  and  Theophilus  of  Castabala  in  Cilicia.  They  were 
given  letters  to  the  Emperor  Valentinian  and  to  Pope 
Liberius.  Valentinian  at  that  time  happened  to  be  in 
Gaul;  they  were  not  able  to  join  him,  probably  because 
he  did  not  consent  to  receive  them.  Liberius,  however, 
gave  them  a  reception,  not  without  some  hesitation,  and 
received  the  letters  that  they  brought.  The  three  envoys 
had  been  authorized  by  those  who  commissioned  them  to 
accept  the  Creed  of  Nicaea,  which  was  known  to  be  the 
indispensable  condition  of  communion  with  the  Roman 
Church.  They  did  this  in  a  document  couched  in 
very  explicit  terms,  in  which  they  condemned  besides 
the  Sabellians,  the  Patripassians,  the  Marcellians,  the 
Photinians,  and  the  Council  of  Ariminum.  Liberius,  on 
his  part,  wrote  to  the  bishops  whose  names  appeared 
on  the  papers  which  had  been  presented  to  him  (they 
were  sixty-four  in  number),^  and  to  all  the  orthodox 
prelates  of  the  East.^ 

Communion  was  re-established  with  Rome.  On  their 
homeward  journey,^  the  delegates  halted  in  Sicily,  where 
the  bishops  of  the  country,  assembled  in  council, 
fraternized  with  them  ;  in  like  manner  they  received 
testimonies  in  sympathetic  terms  from  those  of  Italy, 
Africa,  and  Gaul.  Fortified  with  these  documents,  they 
held  a  meeting  at  Tyana,  in  conjunction  with  certain 
bishops  of  Syria  or  Eastern  Asia  Minor,  several  of  whom 
had  already  accepted  the  homoousios  in  363.*     The  fusion 

^  Among  these  prelates  appears  a  certain  Macedonius,  Bishop  of 
ApoUonias  in  Lydia,  whose  epitaph  I  have  identified  and  commented 
upon.  He  was,  like  many  other  bishops  of  that  party,  a  great  ascetic  ; 
he  had  much  to  endure  at  the  hands  of  the  Anomoeans  (^Bulletin  de 
correspondance  helUnique,  vol.  xi.  (1887),  p.  311). 

2  These  two  documents  are  given  by  Socrates,  iv.  12  ;  cf.  Sozomen, 
vi.  II.  In  the  letter  of  Liberius  the  Sabellians  and  Patripassians 
appear  "  with  all  the  other  heresies  "  in  the  list  of  persons  to  be  con- 
demned ;  but  the  Marcellians  and  Photinians  are  not  mentioned  by 
name. 

3  For  what  follows,  see  Sozomen,  vi.  12. 

*  Sozomen  (vi.  12),  who  gives  us  information  as  to  the  Council  of 
Tyana,  evidently  following    Sabinus'  account,  mentions  Eusebius  of 


i>.  367]       DOCTRINE  OF  THE  HOLY  SPHIIT  293 

between  the  neo-CathoHcs  of  the  East  and  the  old 
Homoiousians  of  Asia  was  in  a  fair  way  of  being 
accomplished,  under  the  auspices  of  Rome  and  the  Latin 
episcopate.  The  assembly  at  Tyana  despatched  to  all 
quarters  the  documents  brought  from  the  West,  and 
summoned  all  the  bishops  to  a  great  council  which  was 
to  be  held  at  Tarsus  in  the  following  spring.  But 
Eudoxius  put  himself  in  the  way  of  this  project.  The 
Emperor  Valens  forbade  the  council.^ 

In  addition  to  the  acceptance  of  the  Creed  of  Nicsea, 
there  was  yet  another  point  upon  which  difficulties  were 
now  beginning  to  show  themselves.  Amongst  those 
persons  who  were  willing  to  grant  to  the  Son  likeness 
absolutely  and  in  essence  to  the  Father,  and  even  to 
accept,  with  regard  to  the  first  two  Persons  of  the  Trinity, 
the  term  consubstantial,  there  were  some  who  refused  to 
make  the  same  concession  as  to  the  Holy  Spirit.  Gradu- 
ally, as  the  dispute  spread  itself  from  this  side,  the  positions 
adopted  grew  more  definite  in  character. 

The  question  was  first  raised  in  Egypt.  Athanasius, 
during  the  last  years  of  the  reign  of  Constantius,  had  dealt 
with  it  fully  in  his  letters  to  Serapion.  He  had  cut  it 
short  in  362,  by  the  Council  of  Alexandria ;  in  the  follow- 
ing year,  he  had  declared  to  the  Emperor  Jovian  that  the 
Creed  of  Nicaea  must  be  completed,  so  far  as  concerns  the 
Holy  Spirit.  Following  his  example,  the  neo-orthodox 
of  Syria  and  Asia  Minor  laid  stress  upon  this  point,  either 
by  expressly  affirming  the  consubstantiality  of  the  Holy 

Csesarea  in  Cappadocia,  Athanasius  of  Ancyra,  Pelagius  of  Laodicea, 
Zeno  of  Tyre,  Paul  of  Emesa,  Otreos  of  Melitene,  and  Gregory  of 
Nazienzus  (the  father). 

1  There  is  a  httle  uncertainty  as  to  the  exact  date  of  these  last 
councils.  That  of  Lampsacus  belongs  certainly  to  364.  It  is  possible 
that  the  journey  of  the  three  bishops  to  Rome  may  have  been  deferred 
till  366.  Liberius  died  in  that  year,  on  September  24.  But  it  is 
difficult  to  suppose  that  such  a  step  should  have  been  taken  just  at 
the  time  of,  or  immediately  after,  the  rivalry  of  Procopius  (September 
28,  365-May  27,  366).  I  should  be  inclined  to  think  rather  that  the 
bishops  set  out  in  the  summer  of  365,  before  Procopius  had  created 
his  disturbance. 


294  AFTER  ARIMINUM  [ch.  x. 

Spirit,  or  by  producing  formulas  calculated  to  establish 
the  dignity  of  the  Third  Divine  Person.  St  Basil  took 
up  both  attitudes  in  turn,  teaching  the  consubstantiality 
in  his  books,  but  not  going  quite  so  far  in  his  discourses  in 
church.  The  creed  then  in  use  at  Jerusalem,  that  which 
is  still  in  use  under  the  name  of  Nicene  Creed,  is  not  more 
explicit  than  the  official  eloquence  of  St  Basil.  It  says 
of  the  Holy  Spirit,  that  He  is  "  the  Lord  and  Life-giver, 
that  He  proceeds  from  the  Father ;  that  He  is  adored  and 
glorified  with  the  Father  and  the  Son,  that  He  has  spoken 
by  the  prophets."  Nothing  more  ;  it  is  not  a  vote  inscribed 
against  the  "  Enemies  of  the  Holy  Spirit." 

This  term  (Pneumatomachi)  was  speedily  made  use  of 
to  describe  the  new  party.  They  were  also  called  "  Semi- 
Arians,"  which  meant  that,  while  orthodox  in  the  main  as 
to  the  Second  Person  of  the  Trinity,  they  were  Arians  so 
far  as  concerned  the  Third  Person.  But  the  title  which 
continued  in  general  use  is  that  of  Macedonians,  from  the 
name  of  Macedonius,  the  former  Bishop  of  Constantinople. 
This  came  about  as  follows.  Macedonius  had  been  elected 
in  earlier  days  in  opposition  to  Bishop  Paul  by  the 
Eusebian  party,  and  had  been  imposed,  not  without 
difficulty,  upon  the  populace  of  Constantinople.  At  first, 
he  made  life  very  hard  for  the  defenders  of  Nicene 
orthodoxy,  who  remained  faithful  to  his  predecessor. 
When  the  anti-Athanasian  party  became  divided  (in 
357),  he  took  up  a  decided  position  in  favour  of  the 
moderates,  and  supported  the  opinions  of  Basil  of  Ancyra. 
We  have  no  proof  that  he  was  distinguished  by  any 
special  doctrine  with  regard  to  the  Holy  Spirit.  He  died 
in  retirement  in  the  neighbourhood  of  the  capital,  shortly 
after  his  deposition  by  the  council  of  360.  But  his 
followers  did  not  all  abandon  him.  There  were  a  great 
number  of  them  who  did  not  wish  to  join  themselves  to 
Eudoxius,  and  who  organized  themselves,  as  well  as  they 
could,  in  a  community  of  their  own.  The  pure  Nicenes, 
since  the  deposition  of  Bishop  Paul,  in  342,  formed  a 
group  apart,  without  a  bishop  of  their  own,  a  position 
closely  resembling   that  of  the  Eustathians  of  Antioch, 


p.  369]  THE  PNEUMATOMACHI  295 

before  the  ordination  of  Paulinus.  The  supporters  of 
Macedonius,  the  Macedonians  as  they  were  called,  did 
not  merge  themselves  with  them.  They  had,  outside 
Constantinople,  the  support  of  a  large  number  of  bishops, 
especially  in  the  provinces  of  Thrace,  Bithynia,  and 
the  Hellespont.  In  these  countries  the  Nicenes  were 
scarce  :  nowhere  did  they  possess  churches.  It  was  the 
Macedonians  who  represented  in  those  quarters  the 
opposition  to  official  Arianism. 

This  was  not  their  sole  recommendation.  The  best 
known  of  this  group  of  bishops  were,  owing  to  the  dignity 
of  their  lives,  their  asceticism  and  their  zeal  in  organizing 
works  of  charitable  relief,  the  objects  of  high  esteem 
among  the  common  people.  From  this  point  of  view, 
they  were  honourably  distinguished  from  votaries  of 
ambition  and  of  pleasure  like  Eudoxius  and  his  associates. 
Among  them  we  have  the  names  of  two  of  Macedonius' 
former  clergy,  Eleusius  of  Cyzicus,  a  man  much  esteemed 
by  St  Hilary,  and  Marathonius  of  Nicomedia.^  The 
latter  was  a  man  of  great  wealth  :  after  having  made  his 
fortune  in  the  offices  of  the  praetorian  prefect,  he  founded 
at  Constantinople  hospitals  and  refuges  for  the  poor ; 
afterwards,  by  the  advice  of  Eustathius  of  Sebaste,  he 
embraced  the  ascetic  life  and  established  a  monastery, 
which  long  retained  the  name  of  its  founder."^ 

Eleusius  was  adored  by  the  people  of  Cyzicus.  We 
are  told  that,  Valens  having  succeeded,  by  dint  of  entreaties 
and  threats,  in  extorting  from  him  a  discreditable  signa- 
ture, the  bishop  on  his  return  home  protested  before  his 
people   that   violence    had    been    used   towards   him,  but 

■*  We  must  add  to  the  list  the  name  of  Macedonius  of  Apollonias 
in  Lydia,  according  to  the  inscription  cjuoted  above,  p.  292,  note  i. 

^  Sozomen,  iv.  27.  Socrates  (ii.  38,  followed  by  Sozomen,  iv.  20), 
on  the  authority  of  a  Novatian  source,  apparently,  says  that  he  had 
been  installed  by  Macedonius  at  Nicomedia.  We  cannot  quite  see 
where  to  place  him.  Cecropius  was  Bishop  of  Nicomedia  from  351 
to  358,  when  he  was  killed  in  the  great  earthquake  on  August  24, 
which  destroyed  the  town.  Acacius  in  360  ordained  a  successor 
to  him  called  Onesimus  (Philostorgius,  v.  l).  Tillemont,  vol.  vi., 
p.  770,  proposes  to  place  him  in  Julian's  reign  ;  this  would  make  him 


296  AFTER  ARIMINUM  [ch.  X. 

that  he  no  longer  thought  himself  worthy  to  remain  in 
office ;  and  that  they  must  therefore  elect  another  bishop 
in  his  place.  His  flock  refused  to  listen  any  further 
to  the  suggestion ;  they  declared  that  they  wished  for 
no  one  but  him,  and  that  they  would  keep  him.  And  so 
they  did.^ 

The  Homoiousian  bishops  on  either  side  of  the 
Bosphorus  were  thus  in  communion  with  the  group  at 
Constantinople,  to  whom  it  was  customary  to  give  the 
name  of  Macedonians.  At  the  time  of  which  we  are  now 
speaking,  they  had,  for  the  most  part,  adopted  the 
formula  of  Nicsa,  and  found  themselves  on  terms  of 
friendship  with  the  Roman  Church.  A  day  came  when 
the  question  of  the  Holy  Spirit  which  had  not  been 
presented  to  them  by  Pope  Liberius,  brought  them  into 
conflict  with  the  neo-orthodox  of  Upper  Asia  Minor. 
Being  thus  formed  into  a  dissenting  party,  they  were 
designated  by  the  name  of  Macedonians,  which  was  borne 
by  their  supporters  at  Constantinople.  It  was  in  this 
way  that  Macedonius  became,  after  his  death,  the  patron 
who  gave  his  name  to  a  special  form  of  dissent,  of  which 
he  had  probably  never  dreamed. 

It  was  not  only  with  these  dissentients  on  the  right  wing 
that  the  official  clergy  had  to  reckon.  The  irreconcil- 
ables  on  the  extreme  left  also  troubled  their  peace.  After 
the  council  of  360,  Aetius,  as  we  have  seen,  had  been 
exiled  to  Mopsuestia  ;  as  he  was  treated  too  well  there 
by  the  bishop,  he  was  transferred  to  Amblada,  a  gloomy 
and  unhealthy  place  in  Lycaonia.     As  to  Eunomius,  his 

an  anti-bishop  set  up  in  opposition  to  Onesimus  by  Macedonius  or 
by  his  party.  However  this  may  be,  the  activity  of  Marathonius 
was  exercised  rather  at  Constantinople  than  at  Nicomedia  ;  whether 
because  being  prevented  for  one  reason  or  another  from  residing  in 
the  latter  city  he  had  established  himself  in  the  capital,  or  because 
there  has  been  attributed  to  his  name  the  influence  exercised  by  his 
monastery.  The  "  semi-Arians  "  of  Constantinople  have  been  called 
Marathonians  as  well  as  Macedonians,  which  gives  some  ground 
for  thinking  that  Marathonius  may  have  been  the  real  author  of  the 
doctrine  of  the  Pneumatomachi. 

1  Socrates,  iv.  6  ;  Sozomen,  vi.  9  ;  Philostorgius,  ix.  13. 


p.  372]  AETIUS  AND  EUNOMIUS  297 

celebrated  disciple,  he  consented  to  sign  the  formula  of 
Ariminum-Constantinople,  and  in  consideration  of  this 
Eudoxius  caused  him  to  be  installed  as  Bishop  of  Cyzicus, 
in  place  of  the  exiled  Eleusius.  Between  Eudoxius  and 
Eunomius  there  had  been,  so  it  was  reported,  secret 
agreements ;  the  new  Bishop  of  Constantinople  had 
pledged  himself  to  bring  about  the  reinstatement  of  Aetius  ; 
in  return,  Eunomius  had  consented  to  moderate  his 
language.  He  did  not  succeed  in  doing  this  sufficiently ; 
the  people  of  Cyzicus  travelled  to  Constantinople  to 
denounce  him,  and,  as  Eudoxius  did  not  make  up  his 
mind  to  rid  them  of  their  bishop,  they  complained  to 
the  Emperor  Constantius.  Eunomius  relieved  all  parties 
of  trouble  by  abandoning  his  bishopric.  He  then  fell 
into  the  hands  of  Acacius,  who  looked  with  an  unfavour- 
able eye  upon  Eudoxius'  dallyings  with  the  Anomoeans. 
Being  summoned  to  Antioch,  he  was  subjected  to  an 
enquiry,  but  his  trial  was  still  going  on  when  Constantius 
died. 

The  accession  of  Julian  gave  liberty  to  the  sectarians. 
Aetius,  who  had  had  former  relations  with  the  new 
emperor,  was  summoned  to  court  ^ ;  and  Julian,  in  spite 
of  his  scant  sympathy  with  the  "  Galileans"  of  any  descrip- 
tion, made  him  a  present  of  a  small  estate  in  the  island 
of  Lesbos.  The  Anomcean  party  found  itself  better  off 
than  the  official  clergy  to  whom  the  support  of  the  govern- 
ment was  now  lacking.  Eudoxius  and  Euzoius,  after 
having  often  cursed  those  tiresome  persons,  now  thought 
it  prudent  to  draw  closer  to  them.  Eudoxius  would 
have  wished  Euzoius  to  reinstate  them ;  Euzoius  that 
Eudoxius  should  do  so ;  they  kept  on  passing  from  one  to 
the  other  this  compromising  task.  At  length  the  Bishop 
of  Antioch  made  up  his  mind  to  annul  everything  that 
had  been  done  by  the  Council  of  Constantinople  against 
the  Anomceans.  But  he  was  in  no  hurry  to  publish  his 
decision ;  so  little  so  that  Aetius  and  his  followers,  grow- 
ing impatient,  decided  to  organize  themselves  separately 
and  to  create  a  schism.  Aetius  was  ordained  bishop  ;  other 
'  Julian,  Ep.  31. 


298  AFTER  ARIMINUM  [ch.  x. 

members  of  the  party  also  received  episcopal  consecration, 
and  were  sent  into  the  provinces  to  preside  over  the 
adherents  of  Anomceanism.  Eudoxius  took  no  notice. 
Besides,  what  hindrance  could  he  have  offered  ?  They 
went  so  far  as  to  set  up  a  rival  to  himself,  by  organizing 
in  Constantinople  itself  an  Anomoean  Church,  the  first 
bishops  of  which  were  Pcemenius  and  Florentius.  Towards 
Euzoius  they  used  rather  more  ceremony :  Theophilus, 
the  saint  of  the  party,  was  sent  to  Antioch  to  try  to 
arrange  matters  with  the  bishop,  in  default  of  which  he 
was  to  organize  against  him  all  the  Anomoeans  that 
the  great  city  contained. 

This  fine  frenzy  was  allayed  when,  at  the  end  of  364, 
Eudoxius  had  succeeded  in  installing  himself  in  the  good 
graces  of  Valens,  and  in  inducing  him  to  return  to  the 
tradition  interrupted  by  the  death  of  Constantius.  At 
Antioch,  Euzoius  took  up  a  hostile  attitude  ;  he  no  longer 
hesitated  to  call  Theophilus  a  blackamoor,  and  his 
disciples  emissaries  of  darkness.  Eudoxius  himself  called 
them  plagues.  Aetius  returned  to  his  island  of  Lesbos ; 
Eunomius  retired  to  an  estate  which  he  possessed  at 
Chalcedon.  They  had  both  renounced  the  exercise  of 
sacerdotal  functions ;  but  they  remained  none  the  less 
the  leaders  and,  as  it  were,  the  prophets  of  the  party. 

A  little  later  came  the  usurpation  of  Procopius.^  The 
pretender,  at  the  time  (363  to  364)  when  he  was  leading 
the  life  of  an  adventurer,  had  found  refuge  with  Eunomius 
at  Chalcedon.     When  he  had  gained  possession  of  power, 

1  Procopius,  a  distant  kinsman  of  Julian,  was  raised  by  him  to 
important  offices  of  State,  and  even,  rumour  said,  chosen  as  his 
eventual  successor.  He  appears  to  have  been  a  pagan,  or  at  least 
to  have  posed  as  such,  for  the  time,  to  please  his  cousin.  Shortly 
after  the  accession  of  Jovian,  he  thought  it  well  to  conceal  himself 
for  fear  of  being  considered  as  a  pretender  to  the  throne,  and  treated 
accordingly.  After  many  adventures,  he  ended  by  causing  himself 
to  be  proclaimed  emperor  at  Constantinople  (September  28,  365)  and 
secured  at  the  outset  some  successes,  which  caused  him  to  be 
acknowledged  in  the  Asiatic  provinces  nearest  to  the  Bosphorus.  In 
the  spring  of  366,  Valens  gained  the  mastery  over  his  rival,  who  was 
taken  prisoner  and  beheaded  on  May  27. 


p.  374]  DEATH  OF  AETIUS  299 

several  of  the  friends  of  Eunomius  and  Aetius  himself 
were  accused  of  having  sided  against  his  usurpation ; 
Eunomius  intervened  and  succeeded  in  clearing  them. 
But  Valens  returned,  and  they  had  to  pay  dearly  for 
this  momentary  enjoyment  of  favour.  Hardly  used  by 
the  reaction,  the  Anomoean  leaders  invoked  the  support 
of  Eudoxius,  who,  having  no  longer  any  need  of  them, 
treated  them  with  disdain ;  far  from  commiserating  them, 
he  told  them  that  they  deserved  much  worse  punish- 
ments. Aetius,  who  had  retired  some  time  before  to 
Constantinople,  to  the  company  of  Florentius,  now  died  : 
Eunomius  closed  his  eyes,  and  his  supporters  gave  him 
a  magnificent  funeral. 

As  to  Eunomius  himself,  being  implicated  in  a  political 
case,  he  was  exiled  to  Mauritania.  On  his  journey 
thither,  he  passed  through  Mursa  in  Pannonia,  where 
Bishop  Valens,  a  former  disciple  of  Arius,  took  him 
under  his  protection.  This  protection  was  so  successful 
that  Eunomius  was  recalled.  But  it  was  not  for  long. 
Eunomius  did  not  know  how  to  keep  himself  quiet.  He 
continued  to  direct  and  to  defend  his  party,  engaging  in 
an  incessant  polemic  with  the  orthodox  doctors — Didymus, 
Apollinaris,  Basil,  and  the  two  Gregorys.  Under  Valens, 
the  prefect  Modestus,  with  whom  St  Basil  also  had  to  deal, 
banished  him,  as  a  stirrer-up  of  ecclesiastical  disturbances, 
to  an  island  in  the  Archipelago.  Under  Gratian  and 
Theodosius,  the  Eunomians  lost  the  right  of  holding 
assemblies.  Their  leader  was  exiled  anew  to  Halmyris 
on  the  Lower  Danube,  and  afterwards  to  Caasarea  in 
Cappadocia,  where  the  remembrance  of  his  conflicts  with 
St  Basil  brought  upon  him  so  much  unpleasantness  that 
he  was  forced  to  retire  to  Dakora,  in  a  country  place.  He 
was  still  living  in  392,  when  St  Jerome  published  his 
catalogue  of  ecclesiastical  writers.  After  his  death,  he 
was  buried  at  Tyana.  It  was  in  Cappadocia  Secunda, 
of  which  this  place  was  the  metropolis,  that  there  was 
born,  in  the  little  town  of  Verissos,  the  historian 
Philostorgius.  His  parents  were  Eunomians.  He  was 
brought  up  in  the  doctrines  of  that  sect,  and  it  was  from 


300  AFTER  ARIMINUM  [ch.  x. 

their  point  of  view  that  he  wrote  during  the  reign  of 
Theodosius  II.  an  ecclesiastical  history,  of  which  only 
some  extracts  remain.  During  his  youth  he  had  known 
Eunomius,  who  made  a  deep  impression  upon  him. 
Though  afflicted  with  a  slight  stammer,  and  with  a  face 
disfigured  by  a  skin  disease,  the  prophet  none  the  less 
possessed  charm  and  eloquence.  Aetius,  keen  in  intellect 
and  quick  at  repartee,  was  a  master  in  debate ;  Eunomius 
himself  was  renowned  for  the  lucidity  of  his  exposition. 

It  is  thanks  to  Philostorgius  that  we  know  the  history, 
and  even  the  historiettes,  of  Anomoeanism.  Notwithstand- 
ing the  religious  reputation  enjoyed  by  some  of  its  leaders, 
such  as  Aetius,  Eunomius,  and  Theophilus,  this  party 
had  never  much  practical  importance.  However,  as  it 
represented,  from  the  doctrinal  point  of  view,  the  clearest 
expression  of  Arianism,  it  figured  for  a  very  long  time 
in  the  discourses  and  writings  of  controversialists,  prone 
even  from  those  far-off  days  to  try  their  skill  against  the 
dead. 


CHAPTER   XI 

BASIL  OF  C/ESAREA 

State  of  parties  in  the  east  of  Asia  Minor.  The  youth  of  Basil  and 
of  Gregory  of  Nazianzus.  Eustathius,  master  in  asceticism, 
afterwards  Bishop  of  Sebaste.  Basil,  a  solitary,  afterwards 
priest,  and  Bishop  of  Caesarea.  The  religious  policy  of  Valens. 
Death  of  Athanasius  :  Peter  and  Lucius.  Valens  at  Caesarea. 
Basil  and  Eustathius.  Basil  negotiates  with  Rome.  His  rupture 
with  Eustathius.  Arian  intrigues.  Dorotheus  at  Rome.  Affairs 
at  Antioch.  Paulinus  recognized  by  Rome.  Vitalis.  The 
heresy  of  Apollinaris.  Eustathius  goes  over  to  the  Pneuma- 
tomachi.  Dorotheus  returns  to  Rome.  Evolution  of  the  Marcel- 
lians.     The  Goths.     Death  of  the  Emperor  Valens. 

The  ancient  provinces  of  Galatia  and  Cappadocia,  which 
under  the  early  empire  included  the  whole  of  Eastern 
Asia  Minor,  had  been  carved  up  under  Diocletian.  Out 
of  their  mountainous  districts  and  those  on  the  sea-board — 
in  fact  the  part  known  as  Pontus — three  provinces  had 
been  made,  Paphlagonia,  the  Pontus  of  Jupiter 
{Diospofitus)^  and  the  Pontus  of  Polemon,  their  capital 
cities  being  respectively  Gangra,  Amasia,  and  Neo- 
caesarea.  In  the  interior,  Ancyra  continued  to  be  the 
Galatian  metropolis,  and  Caesarea  that  of  Cappadocia ; 
but,  to  the  east  of  Cappadocia,  Armenia  Minor  formed  a 
special  province,  of  which  Sebaste  was  the  capital- 
Christianity,  since  the  days  of  Firmilian  and  Gregory 
Thaumaturgus,  had  made  great  progress  in  these  countries. 

'  Later  Helenopontus,  or  Pontus  of  Amasia. 

2  All  these  cities  have  preserved  their  names,  under  forms  slightly 
altered     by     Turkish     pronunciation  :     Kanghri,     Amasia,     Niksar, 
Angora,    Kaisarie,  Sivas. 
801 


302  BASIL  OF  C.^SAREA  [en.  xi. 

Yet,  as  towns  there  were  few,  there  were  not  a  great 
number  of  bishoprics.  It  is  with  difficulty  that,  in  an 
extent  of  country  as  large  as  the  Italian  peninsula,  we 
can  prove  or  presume  the  existence  of  as  many  as  forty 
episcopal  sees.  The  most  important  were  always  those 
of  Caesarea  and  Ancyra.  As  in  the  third  century,  the 
bishops  of  Upper  Asia  Minor  were  always  ready  to 
assemble  in  council,  with  the  co-operation  of  their 
colleagues  of  Syria.  We  have  spoken  above  of  the 
synods  of  Ancyra  and  of  Neocsesarea,  earlier  in  date 
than  the  great  Council  of  Nicaea.  Later  on,  other  councils 
were  held  at  Gangra,  at  Ancyra  again,  at  Melitene, 
Tyana,  and  Zela. 

Arianism  did  not,  so  far  as  we  know,  make  any  very 
notable  recruits  among  this  body  of  bishops.  Cappadocia 
whose  hour  had  come,  rather  late  in  the  day,  to  attract 
attention  to  itself,  produced  at  that  time  a  great  number 
of  ecclesiastical  adventurers,  who  distinguished  themselves 
elsewhere,  under  the  protection  of  the  imperial  police  : 
men  like  Gregory  and  George,  the  two  anti-popes  of 
Alexandria,  and  Auxentius  of  Milan.  Asterius,  the 
lecturer  in  the  time  of  Arius,  and  Eunomius,  the  last 
oracle  of  the  sect,  had  seen  the  light  in  Cappadocia.  But 
these  worthies  do  not  seem  to  have  attracted  much 
sympathy  in  their  native  country.  The  men  whom 
election  called  to  the  exercise  of  episcopal  functions  were 
of  less  advanced  views.  At  the  time  of  the  Council  of 
Nicaea,  the  Bishops  of  Ancyra  and  Caesarea,  Marcellus  and 
Leontius,  showed  themselves  the  determined  opponents  of 
Arius.  In  the  Churches  of  Tyana,  Amasia,  Neocaesarea, 
Sebaste,  and  in  general  throughout  Pontus  and  Armenia 
Minor,  the  same  doctrinal  standpoint  was  maintained.^ 
After  Marcellus  of  Ancyra,  who  pushed  consubstantialist 
doctrine  too  far,  they  elected  Basil,  who  at  first  fought 
in    the    ranks   opposed    to  St  Athanasius,  but  ended    by 

^  Athan.  Ep.  ad  episcopos  Aeg,  et  Libyae,  8.     The  testimony  of 
Philostorgius  upon  the  quarters  from  which  Arius  is  alleged  to  have 
met  with  support  at  the  Council  of  NicEea  (Migne,  P.  G.,  vol.  Ixv., 
.  623),  is  quite  destitute  of  value. 


p.  379]  GREGORY  AND  BASIL  303 

becoming  the  leader  of  a  reaction  against  Arianisnn,  and 
was  persecuted  for  that  reason.  His  successor,  another 
Athanasius,  took  the  first  opportunity  to  declare  his 
fidelity  to  the  faith  of  Nicaea,  and  never  wavered  in  that 
attitude.  At  Caesarea,  Bishop  Leontius  had  been  replaced 
by  one  of  his  clergy,  Hermogenes,^  the  man  who  had  been 
entrusted  at  Nicaea  with  the  task  of  drawing  up  the 
famous  creed.-  Dianius,  who  succeeded  him  (before  340), 
was  not  a  man  of  strong  character ;  he  was  orthodox  at 
bottom,  but  was  never  able  to  refuse  his  signature  when 
it  was  demanded  in  the  name  of  the  party  or  of  the 
government.  He  figures  at  the  head  of  those  "  Easterns  " 
who  wrote  from  Antioch  an  insolent  letter  to  Pope  Julius, 
in  340,  and  who  deposed  him  at  the  schismatical  Council 
of  Sardica.2  We  do  not  hear  that  he  put  himself  forward 
either  for  or  against  Basil  of  Ancyra,  in  358 ;  but,  two 
years  later,  he  signed,  like  so  many  others,  the  formula  of 
Ariminum-Constantinople.  One  of  his  suffragans,  also  a 
very  worthy  man,  Gregory,  Bishop  of  Nazianzus — the 
father  of  that  Gregory  who  afterwards  made  the  name  of 
this  little  place  immortal — was  guilty  of  the  same  weakness. 
When,  in  355,  Julian  was  staying  in  Athens,  he  made 
the  acquaintance  there  of  two  young  Cappadocians  of 
high  distinction,  Gregory  and  Basil,  both  destined  to 
become  shining  lights  in  the  Church.  The  first  was  the 
son  of  the  Bishop  of  Nazianzus,  of  whom  I  have  just  been 
speaking.  His  father  was  a  saintly  man  of  an  original 
turn  of  mind,  who  had  been  at  first  a  member  of  a 
confraternity  of  Hypsistarians,  or  worshippers  of  Zeus 
Hypsistos  ^ ;  he  had  been  converted  by  the  entreaties  of 

^  Eulalius,  of  whom  Socrates  speaks  (ii.  43  ;  cf.  Sozomen,  iv.  24), 
was  not  Bishop  of  Ca;sarea,  but  of  Sebaste.  His  name  appears  among 
the  signatories  of  the  Councils  of  Nicaea  and  of  Gangra. 

2  Basil,  Ep.Zi. 

3  In  this  same  council  there  took  part  the  Bishops  of  JuHopolis  in 
Galatia,  of  Sinope  and  Neocaesarea. 

•*  On  this  cult,  in  which  we  can  recognize  elements  derived  from 
Jewish  Monotheism,  see  E.  Schurer,  Die  Judeti  im  Bospomnischen 
Reiche,  in  the  Proceedings  of  the  Berlin  Academy,  vol.  xiii.  (1897), 
p.  200,  et  seq.  ;  and  Fr.  Cumont,  Hypsistos  (Brussels,  if-g?). 


304  BASIL  OF  CESAREA  [cH.  xi. 

his  wife  Nonna,  and  had  been  elected  bishop  very  soon 
after  his  baptism.  At  that  time,  celibacy  was  not  yet 
obligatory  everywhere,  even  for  the  bishops.  Gregory 
and  Nonna  continued  to  live  together,  and  it  was  then 
that  their  son  Gregory  was  born.  The  family  of  Basil 
came  originally  from  Neocsesarea  in  Pontus,  and  had 
long  been  Christian.  His  grandmother  Macrina  had 
witnessed  the  persecution  of  Diocletian,  during  which 
she  had  fled  to  the  woods  with  her  husband  ;  she  had 
many  memories  of  long  ago,  and  had  many  things  to  tell 
of  St  Gregory  Thaumaturgus.  The  father,  Basil,  was  an 
advocate  of  high  repute ;  the  mother,  Emmelia,  was  the 
daughter  of  a  martyr;  one  of  St  Basil's  uncles  was  a 
bishop  at  the  same  time  as  himself.  Like  his  friend 
Gregory,  the  future  Bishop  of  Caesarea  was  born  in  329. 
The  two  young  people  met  first  of  all  in  the  schools  of 
Csesarea,  and  later  found  themselves  together  in  Athens, 
where  they  were  united  in  close  friendship. 

At  that  time,  a  great  deal  was  heard  in  Asia  Minor  of 
an  ascetic  named  Eustathius,^  who  was  propagating  every- 
where the  practices,  then  quite  novel,  of  the  monastic  life. 
In  his  youth  he  had  stayed  in  Alexandria,  and  had 
attended  the  preaching  of  Arius^;  also,  and  this  was  the 
most  important  fact,  he  had  been  initiated  into  asceticism. 
On  his  return  to  his  own  country,  his  father  Eulalius,  who 
was  bishop  at  Sebaste,^  displeased  at  seeing  him  parade 
an  extraordinary  costume,  drove  him  from  his  Church. 
Eustathius  then  attached  himself  to  Hermogenes,  Bishop 
of  Caesarea,  who,  having  doubts  as  to  his  orthodoxy,  made 
him  sign  a  profession  of  faith.  After  the  death  of  Hermo- 
genes,  Eustathius   sought   the   company   of   Eusebius   of 

1  In  regard  to  this  personage,  see  Fr.  Loofs,  Eustathius  von  Sebaste 
unddie  Chronologie  des  Basilius-Briefe  (Halle,  1898)  and  the  article, 
"Eustathius  of  Sebaste,"  in  Hauck's  Encyclopadie.  In  some  places, 
the  author  goes  a  little  too  far,  being  led  on  by  his  great  desire  to 
rehabilitate  Eustathius. 

-  Basil,  Ep.  130,  I  ;  223,  3;  244,  3;  263,  3;  cf.  Athan.  Hist. 
Arianorum  4. 

3  Socrates,  ii.  43,  and  Sozomen,  iv.  24,  say  that  Eulalius  was  Bishop 
of  Csesarea.     See  p.  303,  note  i. 


p.  381-2]  EUSTATHIUS  OF  SEBASTE  30S 

Nicomedia,  with  whom  he  fell  out  on  account  of  matters 
of  administration.  His  mode  of  life  and  his  propaganda 
of  asceticism  gave  offence  to  everyone,  and  raised  up 
enemies  against  him  everywhere.  He  had  already  been 
condemned  by  a  council  held  at  Neocjesarea.  Eusebius 
pursued  him  before  another  assembly  of  bishops  which 
was  held  at  Gangra  in  Paphlagonia,  about  340.  We  still 
possess  the  letter  which  this  council  addressed  on  the 
subject  of  Eustathius  to  the  bishops  of  Armenia  Minor. 
To  judge  from  this  document,  Eustathius  had  gone 
beyond  all  bounds,  and  had  revived  the  exaggerated 
practices,  already  condemned,  of  the  ancient  Encratites. 
But  the  subsequent  development  of  his  career  gives 
ground  for  thinking  that  the  council  is  extravagant  in  its 
censures,  either  because  it  was  ill  informed  as  to  the  abuses 
which  it  condemns  or,  more  probably,  because  it  attributed 
to  Eustathius  the  excesses  of  too  zealous  followers.  By 
dint  of  discrediting  marriage,  the  innovators  had  made  the 
faithful  believe  that  there  was  no  possibility  of  salvation  in 
that  state ;  hence  came  separations,  and  then  falls.  They 
despised  assemblies  in  church,  but  held  private  ones,  at 
which  they  dispensed  special  instructions.  They  had 
invented  extraordinary  costumics ;  the  women  clothed 
themselves  in  these  like  the  men,  and  cut  off  their  hair ; 
when  the  slaves  adopted  this  style  of  dress,  their  masters 
were  no  longer  able  to  secure  respect.  In  the  matter  of 
abstinence,  they  despised  the  rules  of  the  Church,  fasting 
on  Sundays,  and  eating  on  fast-days.  They  dissuaded  the 
faithful  from  making  offerings  to  the  Church,  inviting 
them  to  assist  their  own  communities  instead.  Some  of 
them  refused  to  eat  meat,  and  would  have  no  religious 
communion  with  married  people,  especially  with  married 
priests ;  they  despised  meetings  for  devotion  at  the  tombs 
of  the  martyrs,  and  proclaimed  to  the  rich  that,  if  they  did 
not  rid  themselves  of  all  their  wealth  even  to  the  last 
stiver,  they  had  no  hope  of  salvation.  The  council 
censured  in  vigorous  terms  these  extravagances  and 
others  of  the  same  kind,  for  they  saw  in  them  a  criticism 
of  the  religious  life  as  it  was  practised  in  the  Church. 
II  U 


306  BASIL  OF  C.ESAREA  [ch.  xi. 

This  attitude  of  dislike  is  always  the  consequence  of 
undertakings  such  as  that  of  Eustathius.  He,  no  doubt, 
made  some  promises  of  submission  ;  but  he  can  only  have 
kept  them  very  imperfectly,  for  he  was  afterwards  con- 
demned as  a  perjurer  by  a  council  at  Antioch. 

The  movement,  for  all  that,  did  not  cease  to  advance. 
Eustathius,  powerfully  assisted  in  Constantinople  by 
Marathonius,  a  former  official,  introduced  into  the  capital 
the  monastic  forms  of  the  ascetic  life.^  Marathonius  had 
become  deacon  to  Bishop  Macedonius,  Eustathius, 
absorbed  in  his  propaganda,  scarcely  thought  of  troubling 
himself  at  that  time  about  the  theological  preferences  of 
the  official  clergy,  or  about  the  war  which  they  were 
waging  against  St  Athanasius.  Athanasius  knew  him, 
and  did  not  love  him.^  Years  passed  away.  Finally, 
about  the  year  356,  Eustathius  was  elected  Bishop  at 
Sebaste,  the  metropolis  of  Armenia  Minor.  It  was  about 
this  time  (357)  that  Basil  returned  from  Athens  to 
Cappadocia.  He  had  often  heard  Eustathius  spoken  of; 
perhaps  he  had  already  had  some  communication  with 
him.  At  this  moment  he  was  hesitating  between  the 
world  and  the  religious  life.  It  was  no  doubt  by  the 
advice  of  the  Bishop  of  Sebaste  that  he  undertook  a  long 
journey  in  Egypt,  Syria,  and  Mesopotamia,  to  visit  for 
himself  the  most  renowned  solitaries.  Fascinated  with 
this  ideal  of  life,  he  returned  to  his  own  country,  and 
attached  himself  definitely  to  the  man  who  was  venerated 
there  as  the  great  master  of  asceticism.  Eustathius  was, 
and  long  remained,  for  him  a  mirror  of  perfection,  a  being 
almost  divine.  His  relations  and  friends,  especially  his 
sister  Macrina,  who  was  already  a  religious,  and  Gregory, 
his  companion  in  study,  also  urged  him  to  forsake  the 
world.  He  found  in  the  valley  of  the  Iris,  not  far  from 
Neocaesarea,  a  solitude  green  and  wild,  where  he  took  up 
his  abode  with  several  companions.  Eustathius  came 
from  time  to  time  to  see  his  new  disciples,  and  together 
they  paid  a  visit  to  Emmelia,  Basil's  mother,  who  was 
living  in  a  neighbouring  town. 
'  Supra,  P-  295.        "  Ep,  ad episcopos  Aeg.  et  Libyae,  70  ;  Hist.  Ar.  I. 


i>.  384]  EXILE  OF  EUSTATHIUS  307 

War  at  this  time  had  broken  out  in  the  Eastern 
episcopate :  Eustathius,  obliged  by  his  new  position  as  a 
bishop  to  take  a  side,  played  a  very  active  part  in  it.  In 
conjunction  with  Basil  of  Ancyra  and  Eleusius  of  Cyzicus, 
he  led  the  Homoiousian  Right  Wing,  and  contended  with 
the  greatest  energy  against  Aetius  and  his  supporters. 
After  a  brief  success,  he  saw  the  opposing  party  regain  its 
foothold,  and  he  received  one  of  the  first  attacks.  A 
council,  assembled  at  Melitene  in  358,  under  the  influence 
of  Eudoxius,  declared  him  to  be  deposed  from  the 
episcopate,  we  know  not  for  what  reason,  but  no  doubt  on 
some  pretext  furnished  by  his  ascetical  extravagances. 
A  priest  of  Melitene,  Meletius,  agreed  to  succeed  him,  and 
was  ordained  in  his  place.  But  the  people  of  Sebaste 
would  have  none  of  it,  and  Eustathius  remained  bishop, 
declaring  that,  as  those  who  had  deposed  him  were  heretics, 
there  was  no  need  for  him  to  pay  any  attention  to  their 
sentences. 

A  crisis  which  affected  him  more  severely  was  that 
which  ended,  at  the  beginning  of  the  year  360,  in  the 
condemnation  of  the  hontoiotisios,  and  the  deprivation  of 
its  adherents.  Like  the  other  leaders  of  his  party, 
Eustathius  was  forced  to  submit  at  the  last  minute,  and  to 
put  his  signature  at  the  end  of  the  formula  of  Ariminum  ; 
like  them,  in  spite  of  this  sacrifice,  he  was  deposed  for 
other  reasons.  With  him  fell  Sophronius,  Bishop  of 
Pompeiopolis  in  Paphlagonia,  and  Helpidius,  Bishop  of 
Satala  in  Armenia  Minor,  the  latter  guilty,  like  the 
Metropolitan  of  Sebaste,  of  having  paid  no  attention  to  the 
sentences  of  Melitene.  Eustathius  was  exiled  to  Dardania. 
The  young  Basil,  who  had  followed  him  to  Constantinople, 
returned  to  his  own  country.  He  had  the  grief  of  seeino- 
the  Bishop  of  Caesarea,  Dianius,  for  whom  he  professed  a 
respectful  affection,  sign  like  everyone  else  the  confession 
of  Ariminum.  Deeply  distressed  at  this  exhibition  of 
weakness,  he  fled  to  his  solitude  in  Pontus,  and  only 
returned  to  C?esarea  to  be  present  at  the  last  moments  of 
the  old  bishop,  who  declared  to  him  that,  notwithstanding 
his  signatures,  he  remained  in  his  heart  loyal  to  the  faith 


308  BASIL  OF  C.^SAREA  [ch.  xi. 

of  Nicaea.  It  was  then  the  year  362  ;  Julian  was  emperor  ; 
even  if  he  had  been  well,  Dianius  could  without  danger 
have  confessed  himself  a  Homoiousian.  He  died,  regretted 
by  his  disciple,  and  in  his  place  there  was  finally  elected, 
after  disorderly  debates,  one  of  the  notabilities  of  the  city, 
named  Eusebius,  a  man  estimable  for  his  uprightness  and 
piety,  but  still  a  catechumen  and  very  little  versed  in 
ecclesiastical  affairs.  Basil  was  still  only  a  reader ; 
Eusebius  raised  him  to  the  dignity  of  priest,  to  the  great 
satisfaction  of  everyone,  especially  of  the  monks  and  their 
following.  It  was  difficult  for  a  priest  so  distinguished  not 
to  excite  jealousy ;  his  enemies  succeeded  in  stirring  up 
strife  between  him  and  his  bishop.  The  monastic  party 
was  already  taking  their  stand  at  his  back,  when  he  wisely 
made  up  his  mind  to  leave  Caesarea  and  to  take  refuge 
once  more  in  his  beloved  solitude  of  Pontus.  However, 
the  times  were  once  more  beginning  to  become  difficult. 
Everywhere  there  was  being  published  the  edict  of  Valens 
against  those  prelates  who  had  been  restored  to  their  sees 
in  spite  of  their  deposition  in  the  time  of  Constantius. 
This  was  the  case  with  Eustathius,  but  not  with  Eusebius. 
But  the  emperor  and  his  immediate  circle,  whether 
episcopal  or  secular,  were  openly  conducting  a  propaganda 
in  favour  of  the  confession  of  Ariminum.  Valens,  on  his 
way  to  Antioch,  appeared  at  Caesarea.  The  bishop 
recalled  Basil,  who,  aided  by  his  friend  Gregory,  gave 
him  energetic  support  at  this  delicate  crisis.  The  storm 
passed,  and  peace  was  preserved.  Basil  was  concerned 
in  the  negotiations  of  Eustathius  with  the  West.  They 
went  together  to  see  the  Bishop  of  Tarsus,  Silvanus,  in 
order  to  come  to  some  understanding  with  regard  to  the 
Council  of  Lampsacus ;  Eustathius  even  wished  to  take 
Basil  there  with  him.  He  remained  at  Caesarea,  but  on 
the  return  of  Eustathius  and  Silvanus  from  Rome  he 
followed  his  bishop  to  the  Council  of  Tyana,  at  which  the 
letters  of  Pope  Liberius  were  presented. 

Several  years  passed  away,  during  which  Basil,  who 
from  this  time  had  enjoyed  the  confidence  of  Eusebius, 
governed  in  his  name  the  Church  of  Cssarea.     At  last,  in 


r.  387]  BASIL,  BISHOP  ()V  CtESAREA  309 

370,  the  bishop  died,  and  Basil,  after  numerous  oppositions, 
was  elected  in  his  place.  The  aged  Bishop  of  Nazianzus 
and  Eusebius  of  Samosata  figured  among  his  consecrators. 

It  was  impossible  to  make  a  better  choice.  Basil 
had  everything  in  his  favour :  personal  holiness,  which 
was  widely  recognized,  a  highly  cultivated  mind,  eloquence, 
Christian  knowledge,  and  political  ability.  From  the 
point  of  view  of  orthodoxy,  he  was  absolutely  irreproach- 
able, never  having  been  compromised  by  parties  or 
signatures.  He  represented  the  old  and  simple  faith  of 
Pontus,  transmitted  and  practised  in  the  piety  of  his 
home.  His  ordination  was  perfectly  regular.  In  his 
episcopal  house  at  Alexandria,  the  illustrious  Athanasius 
leapt  for  joy  at  the  news ;  at  the  first  opportunity  he  was 
heard  to  give  thanks  to  heaven  for  having  given  to 
Cappadocia  such  a  bishop  as  should  be  desired  everywhere, 
a  true  servant  of  God.  The  old  champion  of  the  faith 
could  now  leave  this  world ;  he  had  someone  to  whom  to 
hand  on  the  torch. 

If  the  man  himself  was  of  the  highest  order,  the 
position,  by  reason  of  the  difficulties  which  it  presented, 
was  worthy  of  him.  Valens  was  about  to  return  to 
Caesarea.  In  365,  he  had  been  suddenly  called  away 
from  it  by  the  rival  claims  of  Procopius ;  when  this 
business  was  ended,  he  had  been  obliged  to  carry  on 
a  war  for  three  or  four  years  on  the  Lower  Danube. 
Now,  his  hands  were  free,  as  regarded  the  pretenders 
and  the  Goths ;  he  intended  to  settle  at  Antioch. 
Valens  was  a  man,  masterful,  brutal,  and  dogged.  In 
the  conflict  between  various  religious  parties,  he  had 
made  up  his  mind  from  the  first  year  of  his  reign ;  he 
remained  to  the  end  faithful  to  this  attitude,  and  resolutel}^ 
supported  Eudoxius,  Ituzoius,  and  their  followers.  The 
see  of  Constantinople  became  vacant  in  370,  about  the 
same  time  as  that  of  Caesarea ;  he  summoned  to  it  the 
Bishop  of  Berea,  in  Thrace,  Demophilus,  the  man  who 
had  been  at  one  time  the  evil  angel  of  Pope  Liberius. 
This  choice  did  not  pass  without  opposition.  When  the 
name  of  Demophilus  was  pronounced  in  the  presence  of 


310  BASIL  OF  C.ESAREA  [cii.  xi. 

the  faithful  of  the  capital,  in  place  of  the  usual  acclamation 
"  Worthy,"  there  were  heard  many  voices  which  cried 
"  Unworthy  !  "  Those  who  thus  protested  were  punished 
with  great  severity.  Some  of  them  having  decided  to  go 
to  Nicomedia  and  to  appeal  to  the  emperor  in  person,  he 
answered  them  by  a  sentence  of  exile.  Eighty  of  them 
were  put  on  board  a  ship ;  then,  when  they  were  out 
at  sea,  the  crew  set  fire  to  the  vessel  and  escaped  in  the 
boats. 

Such  an  execution  might  well  excite  alarm  in  the 
episcopate  of  Asia  Minor,  The  Goths  were  subdued ; 
it  was  now  the  turn  of  the  bishops ;  it  was  evident  that 
they  might  expect  harsh  treatment.  The  method  of 
procedure,  as  we  can  see  from  a  large  number  of  instances, 
was  very  simple.  The  prelates  were  presented,  if  they 
had  not  already  signed  it,  with  the  formulary  of  Ariminum- 
Constantinople,  and  steps  were  taken  to  make  sure  that 
they  accepted  communion  with  the  leaders  of  the  party. 
In  case  of  refusal,  the  churches  were  taken  from  the 
recalcitrant  clergy  ;  they  lost  all  their  privileges,  especially 
with  regard  to  municipal  service ;  the  monks  were  sent 
to  the  barracks.  If  there  were  disturbances,  or  if 
there  were  any  reason  to  apprehend  these,  the  bishops 
and  the  clergy  were  deported  to  distant  provinces.  Local 
opposition  was  broken  down  by  force.  The  result  was 
deplorable  scenes,  churches  attacked  and  profaned,  blood- 
shed, and  sentences  of  extreme  severity. 

This  regime  was  applied  everywhere,  not  however  at 
the  same  time.  In  Egypt,  they  waited  for  the  death 
of  Athanasius  (May  2,  373).  The  clergy  and  faithful 
of  Alexandria  had  made  haste  to  elect  in  his  place  his 
brother  Peter,^  whom  he  had  marked  out  as  his  successor. 
But  the  government  refused  to  ratify  this  choice :  they 
meant  to  secure  the  induction  of  Lucius,  the  leader  of 
the  Arians  of  Alexandria.  To  this  end,  the  police,  under 
the  command  of  the  prefect  Palladius,  and  reinforced  by 
the  vilest  of  the  rabble,  once  more  invaded  the  Church  of 

1  Peter  was  forthwith  recognized  by  St  Basil  {Ep.  133)  and  by 
Pope  Damasus. 


p.  389]      DISTURBANCES  AT  ALEXANDRIA  811 

Theonas.  The  consecrated  virgins  were  insulted,  assassin- 
ated, violated,  and  carried  naked  through  the  city.  A 
young  man,  rouged  and  dressed  as  a  woman,  was  hoisted 
on  to  the  altar,  where  he  performed  suggestive  dances, 
while  another  youth,  seated  stark  naked  upon  the  throne 
of  Athanasius,  gave  utterance  from  it  to  obscene  homilies. 
Thus  profaned,  the  venerable  basilica  welcomed  the 
nominee  of  Valens.  Lucius  made  his  entry  into  it, 
escorted  by  the  Count  of  the  Largesses,  Magnus,  and 
the  aged  Euzoius,  The  latter  had  come  post  haste  from 
Antioch  to  be  guilty  of  this  final  outrage  against  the 
Church  of  Alexandria ;  it  was  thus  that  he  took  his 
revenge  for  the  sentence  by  which,  fifty  years  before, 
Bishop  Alexander  had  expelled  him  in  company  with 
Arius.  On  the  following  days,  formal  proceedings  were 
taken  against  the  clergy.  Some  twenty  priests  and 
deacons,  several  of  whom  were  over  eighty,  were  thrown 
into  prison,  and  then  despatched  by  sea  to  Syria,  where 
they  were  confined  in  the  pagan  town  of  Heliopolis 
(Baalbek).  The  populace  protested,  more  especially  the 
monks ;  the  most  enthusiastic  of  these,  to  the  number  of 
twenty-three,  were  arrested  and  sent  to  the  mines  of 
Phseno  and  of  Proconnesus.  Amongst  those  who  went 
to  Phaeno  was  a  Roman  deacon,  an  envoy  from  Pope 
Damasus  to  congratulate  Peter  on  the  occasion  of  his 
accession. 

These  severities  extended  throughout  the  whole  of 
Egypt.  Magnus,  acting  as  imperial  commissioner,  went 
from  one  bishopric  to  another  to  compel  the  recognition 
of  the  official  patriarch,  meting  out  ill-usage  with  a 
generous  hand  to  anyone  who  offered  resistance.  Eleven 
bishops  were  removed  from  their  sees  and  despatched  to 
Palestine,  to  Diocaesarea,  a  town  of  Galilee,  where  there  were 
only  Jews.  Some  of  those  who  protested,  having  travelled 
to  Antioch  to  appeal  to  the  emperor,  received  a  decree 
of  exile  which  banished  them  to  Neocaesarea,  far  away 
in  Pontus.  Bishop  Peter,  a  despairing  witness  of  these 
horrors,  did  not  long  succeed  in  remaining  concealed  in 
Egypt ;   he  made  up  his  mind  to  take  refuge  in  Rome, 


312  BASIL  OF  C.ESAREA  [ch.  xi. 

where  he  waited  in  the  society  of  Pope  Damasus  for  the 
return  of  happier  days.  So  had  his  brother  Athanasius 
acted,  at  the  time  of  Gregory's  usurpation  (339);  Peter 
initiated  him  further  by  bringing  to  the  knowledge  of 
the  Catholic  episcopate  the  violent  measures  which  had 
compelled  him  to  leave  his  see  of  Alexandria.^ 

With  regard  to  other  countries  we  have  fewer  details ; 
but  the  Catholics  were  everywhere  treated  with  the  same 
severity,  Meletius,  for  the  third  time,^  was  driven  from 
Antioch.  Flavian  and  Diodore,  now  ordained  priests, 
undertook  the  government  of  his  Church.  The  places 
of  worship  had  been  handed  over  to  Euzoius  and  his 
clergy.  The  Catholics,  hunted  from  one  cover  to  another, 
ended  by  meeting  in  the  open  country,  to  which  they 
owed  the  name  given  to  them  of  "countrymen"  {Campenses). 
Their  courage  was  sustained  by  the  exhortations  of  their 
brave  leaders  and  of  several  celebrated  monks,  who 
hastened  from  the  neighbouring  deserts  to  join  in  the 
resistance.  Pelagius  of  Laodicea,  Eusebius  of  Samosata, 
Barses  of  Edessa,  Abraham  of  Batna,  and  others  besides 
were  exiled  together  with  numbers  of  the  inferior  clergy. 
The  desolation  was  universal. 

Nevertheless  there  were  but  few  complaints  from 
Western  Asia  Minor,  or  from  Bithynia.  In  these 
countries  the  "  Macedonians "  held  the  upper  hand ;  we 
do  not  know  what  was  their  attitude,  nor  if  they  were 
persecuted  like  the  others.^  In  Galatia  and  in  Paphlagonia, 
the  resistance  does  not  seem  to  have  been  strong.  The 
Bishop  of  Gangra,  Basilides,  was  an  Arian ;  Athanasius 
of  Ancyra  who  died  about  this  time  (371)  was  provided 
with  a  successor  agreeable  to  the  government.     Thence- 

^  See  the  letter  preserved  to  a  large  extent  in  Theodoret,  H.  E. 
iv.  19  ;  cf.  Socrates,  iv.  22.  Upon  these  events,  see  Rufinus,  ii.  3,  4  ; 
cf.  Socrates,  iv.  20-24  \  Sozomen,  vi.  19,  20. 

■■^  His  first  exile  was  that  in  the  time  of  Constantius  (361)  ;  the 
second  must  doubtless  have  been  caused  by  the  edict  of  365.  It 
lasted  but  a  short  time,  for  the  story  of  St  John  Chrysostom  pre- 
supposes the  presence  of  Meletius  at  Antioch  from  367  to  370, 

3  See,  however,  the  epitaph  of  Macedonius  of  Apollonias  cited 
above,  p.  292,  note  i. 


p.  392]  VALENS  AND  BASIL  313 

forward  the  bonds  of  communion  were  broken  between 
Galatia  and  Cappadocia.  In  the  latter  country  Basil, 
taken  in  hand  first  by  the  prefect  Modestus,  and  then 
by  the  emperor  in  person,  opposed  them  with  admirable 
determination  during  the  winter  of  371-372.  Tempering 
his  firmness  with  prudence,^  strong  in  his  personal  dignity, 
his  unsullied  character  and  his  popularity,  he  succeeded 
in  preserving  the  government  of  his  Church.  Valens  did 
not  impose  upon  him  either  formulas  or  communion  with 
bishops  who  were  suspected.  He  confined  himself  to 
being  present  in  person  at  the  religious  services  presided 
over  by  the  Archbishop  of  Csesarea.  He  deemed  no 
doubt  that  such  a  bishop  would  have  been  very  difficult 
either  to  depose  or  to  replace.  But  whatever  his  reason 
may  have  been,  an  exception  was  made  for  Basil  ^ ;  he 
was  allowed  to  live  at  Csesarea,  as  Athanasius  had  been 
allowed  to  die  at  Alexandria.  He  even  received  an 
official  commission  in  372  to  set  in  order  the  religious 
affairs  of  the  kingdom  of  Armenia  and  to  ordain  bishops 
there.  It  also  appears  that,  in  the  early  days  at  least, 
they  left  in  peace  the  other  bishops  of  Cappadocia,  those 
of  Armenia  Minor  and  of  the  Pontic  provinces.  We  do 
not  find,  for  example,  that  they  disturbed  Eustathius 
of  Sebaste  at  that  time,  who  was  most  certainly  not  in 
line  with  the  council  of  360 ;  nor  the  bishops  of  Neo- 
ca^sarea  and  Nicopolis  who  were  still  less  so. 

In  the  spring  of  372  Valens  set  out  for  Antioch, 
and  the  people  of  Caesarea  breathed  more  freely.  It 
was  not  only  on  account  of  religion  that  they  were 
harassed.  The  government  of  Valens  was  engaged  at 
this  time  in  altering  the  boundaries  of  the  provinces. 
Cappadocia,  at   the  expense  of  which   they  had  already 

1  It  appears  that  his  refusal  was  rather  temporizing  than  cate- 
gorical. In  375,  in  a  letter  to  the  Vicarius  Demosthenes  {Ep.  255), 
he  begs  him  not  to  force  a  meeting  between  himself  and  bishops, 
with  whom  "we  are  not  yet  iovirtS)  in  agreement  on  ecclesiastical 
questions."  The  reference  is  to  Arian  bishops  who  accepted  the 
confession  of  Ariminum. 

^  Basil  was  treated  by  Valens  very  much  as  Auxentius  had  been 
treated  by  Valentinian. 


314  BASIL  OF  C.ESAREA  [ch.  xi. 

created  the  province  of  Armenia  Minor  and  those  of 
Pontus,  was  now  to  be  divided  yet  again.  A  Cappadocia 
Secunda  was  formed,  comprising  the  western  and 
southern  part  of  the  ancient  province,  with  the 
cities  of  Tyana,  Colonia  (Archelais),  Cybistra,  Fausti- 
nopolis  and,  to  the  north  of  the  Halys,  the  districts  of 
Mokissos  and  of  Doara.  To  this  same  division  belonged 
also  the  postal  stations  of  Sasima,  Nazianzus/  and 
Parnassos,  the  last  two  of  which  already  possessed 
bishoprics.  Another  postal  station,  Podandos,  situated 
in  the  middle  of  the  Taurus,  at  the  opening  of  the 
Cilician  Gates,  remained  outside  the  new  province.  It 
was  decided  to  create  a  new  city  there,  to  which  were 
to  be  attached  a  certain  number  of  the  municipal  magis- 
trates of  Caesarea.  But  these  persons,  not  at  all  pleased 
at  going  to  live  in  such  an  out-of-the-way  place,  had 
recourse  to  the  influence  of  their  bishop,  who  succeeded  in 
causing  the  proposal  to  be  withdrawn.  Podandos,  therefore, 
always  remained  a  district  or  region  (peyeciov)  belonging  to 
Cappadocia  Prima. 

Basil  might  have  intervened  in  this  last  business, 
which  directly  affected  his  own  flock ;  but  he  had 
evidently  no  valid  reason  to  oppose  to  the  division  of 
the  province,  and  so  refrained.^  Tyana  thus  became 
a  civil  metropolis.  Its  bishop,  Anthimus,  lost  no  time 
in  availing  himself,  in  the  ecclesiastical  sphere,  of  the 
consequences  of  this  administrative  separation :  he  set 
up  to  be  the  metropolitan,  the  ecclesiastical  superior  of 
the  bishops  included  in  the  new  civil  jurisdiction. 
Basil  set  himself  in  opposition.  Hence  arose  a  quarrel, 
in  which  the  Metropolitan  of  Caesarea  defended  himself 
to   the   best  of  his  ability,  especially  by  organizing    new 

^  Nazianzus  had  perhaps  possessed,  under  the  name  of  Diocfesarea, 
a  municipal  organization. 

'^  It  has  often  been  said  that  this  dismemberment  of  Cappadocia 
was  a  blow  aimed  at  Basil,  whose  sphere  of  influence  it  was  sought 
in  this  way  to  limit.  But  the  influence  of  such  a  man  could  not  be 
confined  to  the  greater  or  less  extent  of  his  metropolitical  jurisdiction. 
The  government  had  more  direct  and  more  effectual  ways  of  being 
disagreeable  to  him. 


p.  394]  BASIL  AND  THE  GREGORYS  315 

bishoprics.  Nazianzus  remained  faithful  to  him ;  he 
installed  his  brother  Gregory  at  Nyssa,  a  little  place 
to  the  west  of  Caesarea ;  in  the  south  he  wished  to  have 
a  bishopric  at  Sasima,  on  the  road  to  Cilicia,  and  forced 
his  friend  Gregory  to  accept  that  title.  The  Church 
of  Caesarea  possessed  considerable  property  in  the  Taurus, 
the  natural  products  of  which  had  to  pass  through  the 
new  province  in  order  to  reach  Caesarea.  Anthimus 
intercepted  these  convoys.  It  was  in  vain  that  Gregory 
protested  that  he  had  no  wish  to  interfere  in  the  matter, 
or  to  make  war  upon  Anthimus  in  defence  of  Basil's 
chickens  and  mules :  the  Bishop  of  Caesarea  was  deter- 
mined, and  "  laid  hands  upon  "  his  unwilling  friend.  But 
he  could  not  induce  him  to  fulfil  his  episcopal  duties 
at  Sasima.  Gregory  never  celebrated  divine  service 
there,  nor  ordained  a  single  clerk.  He  had  a  horror 
of  Sasima.  It  was  a  desolate  place,  only  a  few  houses 
round  a  posting  station.  There  was  no  water,  no  vegeta- 
tion :  nothing  but  dust,  and  the  never-ceasing  noise  of 
passing  carts.^  As  to  inhabitants,  there  were  only  vaga- 
bonds, strangers,  or  executioners  with  their  victims  who 
could  be  heard  groaning  and  clanking  their  chains.  This 
melancholy  bishopric  was  naturally  the  cause  of  many 
troubles  to  the  unhappy  Gregory. 

As  for  Basil,  at  first  he  met  with  some  unpleasant 
opposition  among  the  bishops  of  Cappadocia,  but  in 
the  long  run  he  triumphed  over  this.  At  Caesarea  his 
position  was  very  strong.  It  became  still  more  so  when 
he  had  endowed  that  great  city  with  an  enormous 
establishment  for  relief,  the  buildings  of  which  formed 
in  the  suburbs  practically  a  new  town ;  it  was  known 
as  Basilias.  The  Emperor  Valens  had  assisted  him  in 
its  construction  by  granting  him  demesne  lands. 

Basil  had  kept  on  very  good  terms  with  Eustathius, 
his  neighbour  at  Sebaste.  Eustathius  himself  had  also 
founded  near  his  episcopal  city,  a  kind  of  "grand 
hospice,"  which  served  as  a  model  for  the  Basilias  at 
Caesarea.  At  the  beginning  of  his  episcopate,  he  had 
^  Greg.  Naz.,  Cariii.  de  vita  sua,  vv.  439-446. 


316  BASIL  OF  C^SAREA  [ch.  xi. 

entrusted  the  charge  of  it  to  a  certain  Aerius/  one  of 
his  companions  in  the  ascetic  life,  who,  it  was  commonly 
said,  bore  a  grudge  against  Eustathius  because  he  had 
been  preferred  before  himself  for  the  office  of  bishop. 
Their  relations,  far  from  improving,  became  so  greatly 
embittered  that  one  fine  day  Aerius  finally  threw  up 
his  duties  and  set  himself  to  uttering  abuse  against 
Eustathius,  accusing  him  of  avarice,  and  assailing  him 
for  the  most  legitimate  acts  of  his  administration.  Aerius 
had  supporters;  they  joined  him  in  creating  a  schism, 
and  followed  him  to  the  meetings  which  he  held  in  the 
caves  of  the  neighbourhood.  He  taught  them  that  priests 
were  not  inferior  to  bishops,  that  the  Paschal  Feast 
(Easter)  was  only  an  old  remnant  of  Judaism,  that  there 
ought  to  be  no  fixed  times  for  fasting,  and  that  it  was 
useless  to  pray  for  the  dead. 

The  Aerians  must  have  been  few  in  number,  for  at  a 
time  and  in  a  country  where  many  pens  were  active,  St 
Epiphanius  is  the  only  author  who  mentions  them,  lament- 
ing their  errors,  it  is  true,  but  well  pleased  in  his  heart  of 
hearts  at  having,  thanks  to  them,  one  item  more  for  his 
collection  of  heresies.  In  his  estimation,  undoubtedly  too 
severe,  Aerius  and  Eustathius  were  both  of  them  Arians, 
Aerius  openly,  Eustathius  with  some  measure  of  circum- 
spection. It  is  certain  that  Eustathius  was  regarded  with 
sufficient  disfavour  not  only  by  the  old  Nicenes,  such  as 
Athanasius,  Epiphanius,  and  Paulinus,  but  by  the  neo- 
orthodox  themselves.  The  latter,  with  Meletius  at  their 
head,  had  accepted  all  Athanasius'  conditions,  i.e.,  not  only 
the  Creed  of  Nicsea,  but  also  an  explicit  profession  of  the 
absolute  Divinity  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  Eustathius,  always 
fond  of  compromise,  did  not  say  that  the  Holy  Spirit 
was  a  created  being,  but  neither  did  he  affirm  that  He 
was  God.  It  is  possible  that  such  a  reserve  appeared  to 
him  necessary.  I  have  already  said  that  it  was  observed 
by  many  others,  and  that  Basil  himself,  although  holding 
a  very  definite  doctrine  on  this  point,  was  accustomed  to 
a  certain  economy  in  presenting  it  to  his  flock. 

1  In  regard  to  Aerius  see  Epiphanius,  Haer.  74. 


p.  307]  BASIL  AND  EUSTATHIUS  317 

This  similarity  of  attitude  was  calculated  to  strengthen, 
in  the  eyes  of  the  colleagues  of  the  Bishop  of  Cassarea,  the 
bad.  impression  already  produced  by  his  great  friendship 
for  his  neighbour  at  Sebaste.  Eustathius,  who  looked 
upon  Basil  as  his  disciple,  had  lent  him  several  of  his 
monks  to  assist  him  in  the  organization  of  his  projects. 
Through  these  agents,  Sebaste  kept  a  w^atchful  eye  upon 
Csesarea.  Eustathius'  monks  soon  allowed  themselves  to 
criticize  Basil ;  this  gave  rise  to  various  cases  of  friction, 
with  reports  more  or  less  truthful.^  The  final  result  was 
a  situation  of  considerable  difficulty,  which  became  more 
and  more  strained  and,  as  we  shall  see,  ended  in  a 
rupture  between  the  two  friends. 

The  religious  policy  of  the  Emperor  Valens  was  a 
melancholy  contrast  to  that  of  his  brother  Valentinian.- 
Many  people  in  the  East  might  well  say  that  they  lived 
there  under  an  evil  star.  Even  in  the  now  far-off  times  of 
the  Great  Persecution,  the  West  had  scarcely  had  two  years 
of  suffering ;  in  some  countries,  persecution  had  hardly 
touched  them  at  all ;  whilst  the  East,  from  Diocletian  to 
Galerius,  from  Galerius  to  Maximin,  had  had  ten  years  of 
misery.  Licinius  and  Julian  had  only  shown  their  severity 
in  the  East.  The  Western  bishops  had  only  had  to  endure 
Constantius  in  the  last  years  of  his  reign.  And  from 
the  time  of  Julian's  accession  no  one  any  longer  thought 
of  molesting  them.  Was  it  not  natural  that,  being  thus 
favoured  by  Providence,  the  Westerns  should  set  them- 
selves to  work  to  rescue  from  affliction  their  brethren  in 

^  Ep.  119. 

-  We  must  not  judge  of  this,  however,  from  the  letter  reproduced 
by  Theodoret,  H.  E.  iv.  7,  a  letter  plainly  apocryphal  as  well  as  the 
synodal  epistle  (iv.  8),  which  follows  it.  The  imperial  letter,  headed 
with  the  names  of  the  Emperors  Valentinian,  Valens,  and  Gratian,  is 
addressed  to  the  Pneumatomachi  of  Asia,  and  preaches  to  them  the 
Trinity  consubstantial  in  three  hypostases,  with  a  proclamation  of 
anathema,  which  is  scarcely  in  the  imperial  style.  It  incites  the 
subjects  of  Valens  to  despise  the  commands  of  their  sovereign,  whom 
the  forger  apparently  looks  upon  as  the  special  protector  of  the  heresy 
against  the  Holy  Spirit.  It  is  strange  that  Tillemont  should  have 
accepted  such  incongruities. 


318  BASIL  OF  CJESAREA  [ch.  xi. 

the  East?  When  persecuted  by  Constantius,  Athanasius 
had  found  among  them  refuge  and  support.  They  had 
interested  in  his  cause  their  own  Emperor  Constans. 
Was  there  not  ground  for  hope,  now  that  Constantius  was 
living  again  in  Valens,  that  Valentinian  too  might 
intervene  effectually  with  his  brother  ?  He  would  certainly 
do  so,  if  the  Western  episcopate  made  energetic  repre- 
sentations on  behalf  of  the  persecuted.  And  they  certainly 
owed  it  to  them  to  do  so,  for  after  all  the  orthodox  and 
the  well  disposed  had  done  their  duty  at  Seleucia,  and,  if 
they  did  yield  at  Constantinople,  it  was  because  the  other 
side  had  been  able  to  urge  upon  them  the  appalling 
defection  at  Ariminum.  In  the  West,  they  had  reversed 
their  opinions  the  moment  a  respite  came,  and  in  this  new 
attitude  perseverance  was  easy.  It  was  upon  the  East 
that  the  error  at  Ariminum  was  pressing;  and  it  was 
pressing  severely. 

Full  of  such  thoughts  as  these,  Basil,  from  the  begin- 
ning of  his  episcopate,  took  measures  to  excite  the  Western 
Church  to  interest  herself  in  the  sufferings  of  her  sister  in 
the  East.  The  best  intermediary  for  such  negotiations 
was  plainly  the  Bishop  of  Alexandria.  Athanasius  does 
not  appear  to  have  had  very  friendly  relations  with  Pope 
Liberius  during  the  Pope's  last  years.^  He  found  himself 
on  better  terms  with  the  new  Pope,  Damasus,  from  whom 
in  371  he  demanded  the  condemnation  not  only  of 
Ursacius  and  Valens,  but  also  of  Auxentius,  Bishop  of 
Milan,  who  of  all  the  adherents  of  Ariminum  stood  highest 
in  the  favour  of  the  Emperor  Valentinian.  Basil  wrote  to 
Athanasius,^  begging  him  to  stir  up  the  West  in  favour 
of  an  improvement  of  the  general  state  of  things,  and  to 
bring  about,  as  he  alone  could  do,  the  union  of  the 
orthodox  at  Antioch.  Antioch  was,  in  his  eyes,  the 
Mother-Church  of  the  East.^  Universal  reconciliation 
^  If  they  had  been  on  good  terms,  Liberius  would  not  have  given 
so  warm  a  welcome  to  the  envoys  of  the  Council  of  Lampsacus. 
Damasus  showed  himself  far  more  circumspect  in  his  dealings  with 
the  Easterns.  "  E-p.  66, 

^  Even  of  the  whole  world,  if  one  were  to  press  too  closely  one  of 
his    expressions  :    Tt  S  dv  yivoiro  rah  Kara  TTiv    oiKOVfxivr}v  eKKX-rjaiais  t^s 


p.  400]  BASIL  AND  ATHANASIUS  319 

depended  upon  its  internal  unity,  which  had  been  gravely 
compromised  by  the  schism  between  Paulinus  and  Meletius. 
The  reply  of  Athanasius  was  conveyed  by  one  of  his 
priests.  It  encouraged  Basil  to  decide  definitely  upon 
his  course.  He  took  counsel  with  Meletius ;  a  Meletian 
deacon  of  Antioch,  Dorotheus,  was  chosen  to  go  to  Rome.^ 
He  was  the  bearer  of  a  letter,^  couched  in  general  terms, 
in  which  the  Romans  were  reminded  of  their  duties 
with  regard  to  the  Churches  of  the  East,  assisted  in  by- 
gone days  by  Pope  Dionysius.^  What  they  asked  of 
them  at  the  present  was  the  despatch  of  orthodox  and 
peaceable  persons,  capable  of  restoring  the  concord  which 
had  been  disturbed.  Dorotheus  was  commended  to  the 
Bishop  of  Alexandria,^  to  whom  Basil  confided  his  desires. 
The  Westerns  were  to  send  all  the  documents  relating  to 
the  steps  they  had  themselves  taken  since  Ariminum,  to 
condemn  Marcellus,  and  to  settle  the  difficulty  at  Antioch. 
Up  to  the  present,  they  had  only  condemned  Arius ;  this 
they  continued  to  do  on  every  occasion ;  but  of  Marcellus 
they  said  nothing.  As  to  Antioch,  it  must  be  understood 
that  the  only  term  of  reconciliation  admissible  was  the 
recognition  of  Meletius. 

In  the  meantime,  Athanasius  was  entreated  to  grant 
to  the  Eastern  bishops  the  privilege  of  communion  with 
himself^  To  make  quite  sure  of  not  compromising  him, 
he  was  to  send  his  letters  of  communion  to  Basil,  who 
would  only  deliver  them  to  the  right  persons. 

But  all  this  seemed  to  have  remained  fruitless. 
Dorotheus,  on  arriving  at  Alexandria,  was  dissuaded  from 
embarking  for  Italy.  The  condemnation  of  Marcellus 
would  have  been,  for  the  Westerns,  a  formal  revocation 
of  their  previous  judgment.*^     As  to  recognizing  Meletius, 

'AvTioxeioLs  iiriKaipuiTepov ;  the  context  shows  that  he  was  speaking 
especially  of  the  East. 

^  Ep.6%.  '^  Ep.70.  3  <^  Vol.  I.  p.  311. 

^  Ep.  69,  67.  •'  Ep.  82. 

^  Basil  is  fully  conscious  of  this,  when  he  says  {Ep.  69,  2)  that 
the  heresy  of  Marcellus  is  proved  by  his  books  ;  but  it  was  after 
having  taken  cognizance  of  these  books  that  the  Councils  of  Rome 
and  Sardica  had  reinstated  him. 


320  BASIL  OF  CJi:SAREA  [ch.  xi. 

they  might  as  well  not  recognize  Athanasius,  who,  it  was 
well  known  in  Rome,  openly  lent  his  support  to  Paulinus. 

However,  Athanasius  thought  it  possible  to  bring 
about  intercourse  between  Rome  and  Basil.  A  deacon  of 
Milan,  evidently  unattached,  for  he  was  not  in  the  service 
of  Auxentius,  landed  at  Alexandria,  bearing  a  synodal 
letter  in  which  Damasus,  at  the  head  of  ninety-two 
bishops,  notified  to  Athanasius  the  condemnation  of 
Auxentius  and  of  the  Council  of  Ariminum,  Sabinus,  as 
the  deacon  was  called,  was  sent  on  to  Caesarea  with  his 
document.  It  was  not  calculated  to  please  Basil ;  for  it 
said  that  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Spirit  are 
all  of  one  sole  Divinity,  one  sole  virtue,  one  sole  image, 
one  sole  substance.  But  the  word  substance  in  Latin  is 
equivalent  to  hypostasis  in  Greek.  The  Bishop  of  Caesarea 
could  not  possibly  admit  this  statement  except  by  a  liberal 
interpretation.  But  Basil  knew  that  Latin  was  a  com- 
paratively poor  language,  and  in  particular  that  the  term 
essence  (ova-La)  was  lacking  in  it.  Instead  of  raising 
objections,  he  took  time  by  the  forelock,  and  gave 
Sabinus  a  packet  of  letters,^  addressed  to  the  Westerns 
in  general,  to  Valerian  of  Aquileia,  and  to  the  Bishops 
of  Italy  and  of  Gaul.  The  last  letter  was  in  the  name 
of  Meletius,  Eusebius  of  Samosata,  Basil,  Gregory  of 
Nazianzus  (the  father),  Anthimus  of  Tyana,  Pelagius  of 
Laodicea,  Eustathius  of  Sebaste,  Theodotus  of  Nicopolis, 
and  others,  thirty-two  Eastern  prelates  in  all.  They  had 
taken  great  care,  this  time,  to  avoid  awkward  refinements 
of  expression,  and  to  confine  themselves  to  invoking  the 
compassion  of  their  Western  colleagues,  simply  asking 
them  to  send  some  persons  authorized  to  investigate  the 
position  and  to  bring  about  peace. 

Basil  did  not  fail  to  urge  Meletius  to  adopt  a 
respectful  attitude  towards  Athanasius;  he  would  have 
liked  Meletius  also  to  despatch  an  envoy  to  the  West  - ; 
but  Meletius  sent  no  one. 

Sabinus  set  out  once  more  in  the  spring  of  372.     A 
year,  at  least,  passed  away,  and  no  news  came  from  the 
1  E/>.  90,  91,  92.  -  Ep.  89. 


p.  402-3]  ROME  AND  THE  EAST  321 

Western  Church.  At  last,  in  the  summer  of  the  following 
year  (373),  they  saw  the  arrival  from  Italy  of  a  priest 
of  Antioch,  Evagrius,  who,  eleven  years  earlier,  had 
followed  to  Italy  the  celebrated  confessor,  Eusebius  of 
Vercellae.  After  the  latter's  death,  Evagrius  was  returning 
to  his  own  country.  He  brought  back  with  him  from  Rome 
a  formula  for  signature,  in  which  not  a  single  word  might 
be  changed  ;  and  also  the  letters  which  had  been  entrusted 
the  year  before  to  Sabinus :  they  had  not  given  satis- 
faction. These  proceedings,  we  must  admit,  were  scarcely 
friendly.  They  were  not  softened  by  a  demand  that  the 
Eastern  prelates  should  themselves  repair  to  Rome,^  in 
order  that  there  might  be  some  reason  for  making  them  a 
return  visit. 

Basil  was  offended ;  from  that  time  forward  he  had 
only  a  poor  opinion  of  the  Westerns,  and  their  chief. 
Pope  Damasus,  impressed  him  as  a  man  of  haughty  and 
merciless  temper.  And  moreover,  the  death  of  Athanasius 
had  just  deprived  him  of  his  best  base  of  operations. 
Alexandria  was  in  the  hands  of  the  Arians,  and  the 
episcopate  of  Egypt  was  a  prey  to  the  most  cruel 
persecution.  The  negotiations  with  the  West  were 
broken  off.  And,  to  crown  all,  Evagrius,  on  his  arrival  at 
Antioch,  refused  to  ally  himself  with  the  Meletians,  and 
entered  into  communion  with  Paulinus.- 

It  was  at  this  moment  that  there  took  place  at  last  the 
complete  rupture  between  Basil  and  Eustathius. 

Eustathius,  apart  from  Basil,  had  few  friends.  One 
party  detested  him  on  account  of  his  monks,  another 
because  of  his  doctrine.  It  was  impossible  to  get  him  to 
take  a  side  in  the  dispute  about  the  Holy  Spirit ;  notwith- 
standing his  reticences,  it  was  seen  that  he  inclined  to 
the  opinion  adverse  to  His  absolute  Divinity.  In  the 
provinces  of  Asia,  the  Hellespont,  and  Bithynia,  he  would 
have  been  in  agreement  with  the  other  bishops.  In  the 
heart  of  Pontus,  however,  the  loudest  voices  were  in  favour 
of  the  opposite  doctrine,  and  some  who  would  not,  perhaps, 
of  themselves  have  defended    the    Holy    Spirit    with   so 

'  Ep.  138,  2.    Cf.  140,  156.  -^  Ep.  156. 

II  X 


322  BASIL  OF  C^SAREA  [ch.  xi. 

much  vigour,  ranged  themselves  on  His  side  in  order 
not  to  be  on  the  side  of  Eustathius.  Basil,  to  whom  this 
dangerous  friendship  caused  every  day  fresh  anxieties, 
made  up  his  mind  to  put  an  end  to  it,  and  to  induce 
Eustathius  to  explain  himself  clearly.  In  the  spring  of 
372  he  repaired  to  Sebaste  and,  after  prolonged  confer- 
ences, persuaded  his  old  master  to  embrace  his  own 
opinions.  He  proposed  to  continue  his  journey  and  to 
visit  Theodotus,  Bishop  of  Nicopolis,  the  declared 
opponent  of  Eustathius,  in  order  to  arrange  with  him 
and  Meletius,  who  happened  to  be  in  that  neighbourhood, 
a  formula  which  should  be  signed  by  the  Bishop  of  Sebaste. 
But,  from  information  which  reached  him,  he  had  reason 
to  fear  that  Theodotus,  disturbed  by  the  conference  at 
Sebaste,  would  give  him  an  unfavourable  reception.  He 
therefore  returned  home,  only  to  resume  the  same  journey 
a  few  weeks  later,  the  emperor  having  sent  him  on  a 
mission  in  Armenia  Major.  For  the  business  of  this 
mission  Basil  needed  the  co-operation  of  Theodotus.  He 
therefore  had  an  interview  with  him,  at  the  country  house 
to  which  Meletius  had  retired  ;  they  succeeded  in  coming 
to  a  temporary  understanding  in  the  matter  of  Eustathius. 
But  Theodotus,  after  he  had  returned  home,  changed  his 
opinion  completely ;  and  when  Basil  came  to  conduct  him 
to  Armenia  Major,  he  would  not  even  admit  him  into  his 
church. 

The  mission  to  Armenia  failed  on  that  account.  But 
Basil  and  Theodotus  ended  by  being  reconciled ;  they 
even  came  to  an  agreement  as  to  the  formula  ^  which  was 
to  be  presented  to  Eustathius,  and  the  latter  consented  to 
sign  it. 

One  might  think  that  everything  was  accomplished, 
and  that  nothing  remained  but  to  shake  hands.  A 
meeting-place  was  appointed  :  Eustathius  was  to  be  there 
with  Basil  and  his  friends.  They  waited  for  him  in  vain. 
His  companions  had  turned  him  back ;  it  is  quite  possible, 
too,  that  Basil's  friendship  for  Meletius,  his  former  rival, 
may  have  seemed  to  him  inordinate ;  one  fact  is  certain, 

^  Ep.  125. 


p.  405]  EUSTATHIUS  AND  BASIL  323 

that  thenceforward  he  entertained  a  deadly  hatred  for  his 
former  disciple.  On  his  return  from  a  journey  iri  Cilicia 
which  he  made  at  this  time,  he  wrote  to  Basil,  declaring 
that  he  renounced  all  communion  with  him. 

The  pretext  was  a  letter  from  Basil  to  Apollinaris,  a 
letter  twenty  years  old,  which  contained  no  question  of 
dogma  whatever.  Apollinaris  and  Basil  were  still  laymen 
at  the  time  of  this  correspondence.  No  matter  :  Basil  had 
written  to  Apollinaris  ;  therefore,  he  was  an  Apollinarian, 
a  heretic.  Another  letter,  soon  spread  broadcast  through- 
out the  whole  of  Asia  Minor,  denounced  Basil  as  an 
intriguer ;  it  painted  in  the  blackest  colours  the  part  he 
had  played  in  the  matter  of  the  signature.  Thus  began  a 
deplorable  controversy,  in  the  course  of  which  Basil  and 
Eustathius  exchanged  the  bitterest  accusations.  Basil  was 
treated  as  a  Sabellian,  on  account  of  his  relations  with 
Apollinaris.  There  was  even  circulated  under  his  name  a 
document  in  which  his  orthodoxy,  on  this  head,  was  con- 
siderably compromised,^  Basil,  on  his  side,  revived  the  old 
story  of  the  relations  of  Eustathius  with  Arius,  and  recalled 
that  he  had  been  the  master  of  Aetius ;  as  if  anyone  could 
be  responsible  for  his  masters  or  for  his  disciples. 

The  Arian  party  profited  by  this  quarrel.  From  the 
outset  Eustathius  had  found  in  the  Cilician  episcopate 
supporters  whose  orthodoxy  was  doubtful.  In  the 
following  year  (374)  the  Bishop  of  Samosata,  Eusebius,  the 
friend  and  adviser  of  Basil,  was  exiled  to  Thrace.  Shortly 
afterwards,  the  Vicarius  of  Pontus,  one  Demosthenes,  who 
did  not  love  Basil,  and  with  reason,^  undertook  a  cam- 
paign against  the  orthodox  Churches  of  Cappadocia  and 
Armenia  Minor.  There  was  held  in  Galatia,  towards  the 
end  of  the  year,  a  council  of  official  bishops,  under  the 
direction  of  Euhippius,  one  of  the    influential    members 

1  Ep.  129.  The  complete  text  was  published  at  Rome,  in  1796,  by 
L.  Sebastiani,  Epistola  ad  Apollinare^n  Laodicenutn  celeberrima^  etc., 
and  reproduced  by  Loofs,  Eustathius  von  Sebastia,  p.  72. 

-  At  the  time  of  Valens'  visit  to  Cassarea,  Demosthenes  was  still 
only  chefoiihe  imperial  kitchens.  As  he  made  a  show  of  meddling 
in  the  affairs  of  the  Church,  Basil  had  sent  him  back  to  his  pots  and 
pans.     This  was  the  cause  of  much  talk  at  Caisarea. 


324  BASIL  OF  C^ESAREA  [ch.  xi. 

of  the  synod  of  360.  The  Bishop  of  Parnassos,  Hypsis, 
the  nearest  at  hand,  was  deposed,  and  replaced  by 
Ecdicius,  a  safe  man.  Gregory,  Bishop  of  Nyssa,  Basil's 
brother,  being  accused  by  a  private  individual,  was 
summoned  to  appear  and  was  brought  under  escort; 
but  he  escaped  on  the  way.  Demosthenes  next  visited 
Csesarea,  where  he  sentenced  the  clergy  to  municipal 
service  ;  then  he  went  to  Sebaste,  and  did  the  same  to 
those  who  supported  Basil  against  Eustathius.  Finally,  he 
called  together  at  Nyssa  a  council  of  bishops  of  Galatia 
and  Pontus,  who  deposed  Gregory  and  appointed  his 
successor.  The  same  proceeding  was  carried  out  at 
Doara. 

Just  at  this  time,  Theodotus,  Bishop  of  Nicopolis, 
died.  The  official  council  transferred  itself  to  Sebaste : 
Eustathius,  who  had  already  had  at  Ancyra  itself  some 
relations  with  these  prelates,  now  fraternized  openly  with 
them.  From  Sebaste,  they  pushed  on  to  Nicopolis. 
There,  with  Basil's  approbation,  the  Bishop  of  Satala  had 
already  installed  his  colleague  of  Colonia,  Euphronius^; 
Eustathius  had  another  candidate,  a  priest  called  Fronto. 
Euphronius  was  sent  back  to  Colonia,  and  Fronto  was 
put  in  possession  of  the  churches  ;  those  who  objected 
were  evicted  and  had  to  hold  their  meetings  in  the 
open  country,  as  the  Meletians  were  wont  to  do  at 
Antioch.^ 

It  was  while  under  the  impression  of  these  melancholy 
occurrences  that  Basil  wrote  a  letter^  to  the  bishops  of 
Italy  and  of  Gaul.  After  the  reception  given  to  his 
correspondence,  he  was  scarcely  disposed  to  resume 
negotiations  with  Rome.  Nevertheless,  in  the  preceding 
year  (374)*  he  had  assisted  with  his  recommendation   a 

1  Nicopolis,  Satala,  and  Colonia  formed  part  of  the  province  of 
Armenia  Minor,  of  which  Eustathius  was  metropolitan. 

2  Epp.  225,  237-240,  244,  251.  3  Ep.  243. 

■*  The  date  is  given  by  Epp.  120  and  121,  which  show  us 
Sanctissimus  as  in  Armenia  Minor,  at  the  time  when  Anthimus, 
Bishop  of  Tyana,  had  just  ordained  Faustus,  rhv  cwovto.  t^  JldTrci. 
This  Papas  is  none  other  than  the  Armenian  King  Pap,  called  Para  in 
Ammianus  Marcellinus_(xxx.  i),  who  was  assassinated  in  374.     The 


p.  408]  RETURN  OF  DOROTHEUS  325 

certain  priest  Sanctissimus,  who  was  very  well  informed 
as  to  the  state  of  feeling  in  the  West,  and  was  travelling 
through  Armenia  Minor  and  Syria/  collecting  signatures. 
Basil  gave  him  his  patronage.  When  he  had  finished  his 
round,  he  set  out  for  Italy  (375),  accompanied  by 
Dorotheus,  now  promoted  to  the  priesthood.  They 
carried  with  them,  fortified  by  the  signatures  collected 
by  Sanctissimus,  the  formula  which  Evagrius  had  brought 
over  in  373  and  Basil's  letter. 

The  result  was  not  that  which  was  desired.  No  one 
came  from  the  West ;  however,  Dorotheus  brought  back 
a  letter-  in  which  his  zeal  was  acknowledged,  and  it  was 
stated  that  a  strong  effort  had  been  made  to  assist  him. 
So  far  as  doctrine  was  concerned,  the  letter  condemned 
the  errors  of  Marcellus  and  of  Apollinaris,  but  without 
mentioning  them  by  name.  The  term  una  substantia  was 
no  longer  employed  ;  for  it  was  substituted  that  of  una 
usia,  in  Greek,  since  Latin  did  not  possess  the  equivalent 
of  this  term.^  Attention  was  also  called  to  the  fact  that 
the  canonical  rules  as  to  the  ordination  of  bishops  and 
clergy  {sacerdotum  vel  clericonini)  must  be  observed,  and 
that  those  who  failed  to  do  so  could  not  be  admitted 
easily  to  communion.  This  seems  clearly  aimed  at 
Meletius. 

To  show  this  intention  more  plainly,  a  letter  was 
written  to  Paulinus,  and  he,  when  he  received  it,  hastened 
to  make  a  boast  of  it.^  Peter,  the  new  Bishop  of 
Alexandria,   was   installed   in    Rome ;    and   although   he, 

fact  that  Faustus  "  was  with  Pap,"  gives  reason  for  thinking  that  he 
had  followed  that  prince  in  his  journey  to  Cilicia,  and  that  he  was 
living  with  him  at  Tarsus.  Sanctissimus  then  set  out  for  Armenia 
Minor,  where  he  made  a  long  stay  with  Meletius.  He  did  not  go 
to  Syria  until  the  following  year.  I  do  not  think  that  this  chrono- 
logical datum  has  been  made  use  of  previously. 

1  Epp.  120,  121,  132,  253-256. 

2  Constant,  Ep.  Rom.  Ponii/.,  p.  495  :  "  Ea  gratia." 

•''  Basil  {Ep.  214,  4)  mentions  this  change.  Henceforward,  the 
Western  Church  will  be  found  making  the  distinction  between  usia 
and  hypostasis. 

^  Epp.  214,  216. 


326  BASIL  OF  CiESAREA  [ch.  xi. 

personally,  was  on  good  terms  with  Basil,^  he  in  no  wise 
shared  Basil's  sympathies  with  Meletius. 

The  letter  -  received  by  Paulinus  was,  I  think,  brought 
to  him  by  Vitalis,  a  priest  of  Antioch,  who  down  to 
that  time  had  been  one  of  Meletius'  clergy,  but  who 
had  now  decided  to  forsake  him,  because  his  ideas  as  to 
the  Incarnation  were  not  well  received  in  that  quarter. 
Vitalis  was  an  adherent  of  Apollinaris.  I  have  explained 
above  what  constituted  the  peculiar  doctrine  of  that  learned 
man.  Since  the  time  of  the  Council  of  Alexandria  (362), 
the  opposition  between  the  two  opinions  represented  by 
Apollinaris  and  by  Diodore  had  not  ceased  to  accentuate 
itself. 

In  the  Church  of  Meletius,  Apollinarianism  was 
energetically  repudiated.  Apollinaris,  although  bishop 
at  Laodicea,  kept  school  for  all  that  at  Antioch.  Among 
his  hearers  he  had  had  in  the  course  of  the  preceding 
years  a  Latin  monk  of  considerable  scholarship,  named 
Jerome,  who,  after  having  studied  in  the  schools  at 
Rome  and  cultivated  asceticism  with  the  clergy  of 
Aquileia,  had  made  up  his  mind  to  make  trial  of  the 
hermit's  life  in  the  deserts  of  the  East  But  before 
burying  himself  there  he  stayed  some  time  at  Antioch, 
where  he  initiated  himself  in  exegesis  under  the  guid- 
ance of  Apollinaris  while  avoiding  his  theological  views. 
He  had  not  thought  it  his  duty  to  take  a  side  between 
the  two  rival  churches,  and  had  confined  himself  in 
the  matter  of  ecclesiastical  communion  to  that  of  the 
Egyptian  confessors,  exiled  to  Syria  for  the  Catholic 
Faith.  At  Rome  also  there  had  been  a  long  hesitation 
between  Meletius  and  Paulinus ;  but  it  was  inevitable 
that  the  Alexandrian  connections  of  the  latter  should 
turn  the  scale  in  his  favour.  This  actually  happened 
in  the  same  year,  375.  Through  "  his  son "  Vitalis, 
Pope  Damasus  had  written  officially  to  Paulinus,  giv- 
ing him  power  to  deal  with  questions  of  communion. 
Damasus  was  badly  informed  ;  he  did  not  know  at 
this   time   that    Vitalis  was   on   the    side   of  Apollinaris. 

^  Epp.  133,  266.  -  A  lost  letter,  mentioned  in  Jaffe,  235. 


p.  410]  DAMASUS  AND  PAULINUS  327 

Pieces  of  information  reached  him,  perhaps  through 
Dorotheus ;  and  he  changed  his  mind.  While  Paulinus 
was  boasting  at  Antioch  that  he  had  been  recognized 
by  Rome,  new  messengers  were  on  their  way  to  him  ; 
one,  to  warn  him  that  difficulties  had  supervened  ^  ; 
the  other,-  to  give  him  in  relation  to  Vitalis  more  com- 
plete instructions.  Vitalis  and  his  followers  must  only 
be  admitted  into  communion  after  an  explicit  repudiation 
of  the  doctrine  according  to  which  Christ  had  not  been 
a  perfect  Man — the  Divine  Word  having  taken  the  place 
in  Him  of  the  intelligent  soul  {sensus,  vovi).  Apollinaris 
was  not  mentioned  by  name.  Rome  and  Alexandria 
still  retained  some  feelings  of  respect  for  the  illustrious 
theologian.^  The  affair  of  Vitalis  brought  matters  to  a 
crisis.  The  Meletians  already  considered  Apollinaris 
and  Vitalis  as  heretics ;  after  the  letter  of  Damasus  it 
was    impossible    for    Paulinus   to    receive   them    into    his 

'  Per  Petronium  presbyteriim^  Jaffe,  235. 

2  Jaffe,  235,  but  of  course  without  the  anathemas,  and  only  as  far 
as  the  words  in  suscipiendo  tnbuat  exefuplum.  Following  this  letter, 
certain  collections  of  canons  (see  Maassen,  Quellen,  vol.  i.,  p.  232 
ei  seq.)  give  a  document,  also  addressed  to  Paulinus  of  Antioch  : 
Post  concilium  Nicaenutn.  Other  collections  place  it  after  the  Council 
of  Nicaea  ;  Theodoret  {H.  E.  v.  11)  gives  it  by  itself,  translated  into 
Greek.  This  document  contains  two  series  of  anathemas  ;  the  first 
mentions  by  name  Sabellius,  Arius,  Eunomius,  the  Macedonians,  and 
Photinus.  Without  naming  Eustathius  or  Apollinaris  or  Marcellus, 
it  proscribes  their  principal  errors,  and  concludes  with  a  censure 
of  those  who  migrate  from  one  Church  to  another  ;  it  is  no  doubt 
Meletius  who  is  aimed  at.  The  second  part  of  the  document :  Si 
quis  non  dixerit,  etc.,  has  in  view  neither  Marcellus  nor  Apollinaris  ; 
it  is  concerned  almost  entirely  with  the  Holy  Spirit.  I  think  that  we 
have  here  before  us  two  documents  of  different  date  which  have 
been  joined  together  later,  without  any  regard  to  the  chronological 
order.  The  second  is  really  earlier  than  the  first.  It  might  well  go 
back  to  the  time  (about  371)  when  St  Athanasius  wrote  his  letter  to 
Epictetus.  The  errors  with  regard  to  the  Incarnation  which  are 
mentioned  in  it  are  more  closely  akin  to  those  that  he  refutes  in 
that  letter  than  to  Apollinarianism  properly  so-called. 

■''  We  must  remember  that  Apollinaris  belonged  to  the  "Little 
Church,"  and  was  the  rival  of  Pelagius  at  Laodicea,  as  Paulinus  was 
of  Meletius  at  Antioch. 


328  BASIL  OF  Ci^SAREA  [ch.  xi. 

Church.     They  founded  another  Church,  and  Vitalis  him- 
self became  its  bishop. 

While  these  things  were  happening  at  Antioch, 
Eustathius,  isolated  in  his  own  country  where  his 
suspicious  dealings  with  the  official  bishops  had  still 
further  deprived  him  of  sympathizers,  conceived  the  idea 
of  making  overtures  to  his  old  friends,  the  "  Macedonians." 
This  party  held  in  376  a  council  at  Cyzicus ;  Eustathius 
went  to  it.  At  this  meeting  a  new  confession  of  faith 
was  adopted,  in  which  the  hojnoousios  was  repudiated 
afresh  and  replaced  by  the  homoioiisios ;  the  Holy  Spirit 
was  also  placed  by  it  in  the  number  of  created  beings. 
Eustathius  signed  this  formula,  and  thus  defined  his 
attitude  by  ranking  himself  among  the  Pneumatomachi. 

From  Basil's  point  of  view,  these  events  were  well  suited 
to  enlighten  the  Westerns  as  to  the  worth  of  the  persons 
who  were  sheltering  themselves  in  the  East  under  their 
patronage.  Eustathius  had  been  received  at  Rome  by  the 
previous  Pope  ;  he  had  bragged  of  it  for  a  very  long  time. 
Apollinaris  and  Paulinus,  the  heads  of  the  Little  Church, 
were  prot^gis  of  Rome;  so  was  Vitalis.  No  party  was 
untarnished  save  Meletius  and  his  followers,  the  very 
persons  with  whom  the  Romans  would  have  nothing  to 
do.  Advantage  was  taken  of  this  position  of  affairs  to  try 
a  new  course  of  action.  In  the  spring  of  377  Dorotheus 
and  another  priest,  perhaps  Sanctissimus  again,  set  out  for 
Rome  with  a  letter  addressed  "  to  the  Westerns,"  in  the 
name  of  the  Easterns  collectively.^  This  time  things  were 
stated  exactly.  The  Romans  were  informed  that  it  was 
no  longer  the  Arians  who  needed  to  be  repudiated ;  their 
excesses  were  rendering  them  more  odious  than  ever.  Other 
enemies  were  threatening  the  Church,  enemies  all  the  more 
dangerous  because  to  treat  them  kindly  was  to  allow 
doubts  to  rise  as  to  the  pernicious  nature  of  their  doctrine. 
It  was  necessary  to  condemn  in  express  terms  Eustathius, 
the  chief  of  the  Pneumatomachi ;  Apollinaris,  who  taught 
the  Millenial  reign  and  disturbed  everyone  by  his  doctrine 

*  Ep.  263  ;  cf.  Ep.   129,  in  which  Basil  explains  to  Meletius  the 
plan  of  this  new  step. 


p.  413]  THE  NEW  SITUATION  329 

as  to  the  Incarnation ;  and  finally,  Marcellus,  whose 
disciples  found  too  much  support  from  Paulinus. 

This  new  embassy  of  Dorotheus  had  only,  and  could 
only  have,  partial  success.  That  the  Roman  Church  re- 
pudiated the  errors  attributed  to  Eustathius,  Apollinaris, 
and  Marcellus,  there  could  be  no  manner  of  doubt.  It 
had  already  expressed  itself  clearly  on  that  point.  It 
had  done  so  especially  in  the  letter  which  Dorotheus  had 
brought  back  to  the  East.  It  did  so  once  more,  to  satisfy 
the  Easterns,  in  another  letter  which  Dorotheus  carried 
back  on  his  return  from  this  new  journey.^  As  to  con- 
demning by  name  absent  persons,  such  as  Eustathius, 
Apollinaris,  or  Paulinus,  without  even  giving  them  a 
chance  of  explaining  themselves  in  a  debate  in  which 
both  sides  were  heard,  this  could  scarcely  be  asked  of  the 
Apostolic  See.  The  utmost  that  it  could  have  done  would 
have  been  to  ratify  a  sentence  pronounced  after  such  a 
discussion  by  the  lawful  authorities  of  the  East.  But  this 
debate  had  not  taken  place,  nor  did  such  a  sentence  exist. 

The  situation  was  one  from  which  there  was  no  way 
out.  On  the  men  of  this  time  who  were  well  intentioned 
there  weighed  the  consequences  of  the  long  war  in  which 
Eusebius  of  Nicomedia  had  embroiled  the  Easterns,  first 
against  Alexandria,  and  then  against  the  Roman  Church. 
Moreover,  everyone  was  not  well  intentioned.  Paulinus 
ought  to  have  retired.  But  even  when  rid  of  the  embar- 
rassment of  his  personality,  the  position  would  have  re- 
mained critical,  for  opinion  in  Egypt  would  still  have 
seen,  behind  Meletius,  the  shades  of  his  former  patrons, 
Eudoxius  and  Acacius  and  their  like.  However,  as  Meletius 
was  personally  very  popular,  things  would  have  settled 
themselves  at  Antioch,  and  elsewhere  people  would  have 
ended  by  taking  his  side  in  the  matter.  In  any  case, 
Rome  and  Alexandria  would  have  ceased  to  tow  in  their 
wake  the  cumbersome  wreck  of  the  old  Marcellian  party  ; 
and  union  would  have  been  restored  between  them  and 
the  Churches  of  the  East.     This  may  be  said  in  order  to 

'  The  Fragments,  lllud  sane  miramur  and  Non  nobis  quidqicam 
(Constant,  Ep.  Rom.  Pont^  pp.  498,  499). 


330  BASIL  OF  CESAREA  [ch.  xi. 

indicate  more  clearly  the  lines  and  necessities  of  the 
situation,  for  I  do  not  consider  that  it  is  the  province  of 
the  historian  to  occupy  himself  with  things  which  might 
have  happened :  he  has  quite  enough  to  do  with  those 
that  did  happen  as  a  matter  of  fact 

The  interviews  which  Meletius'  envoy  had  in  Rome 
with  Pope  Damasus  were  not  always  of  a  very  peaceable 
character.  Peter  of  Alexandria  was  present  at  them. 
When  it  was  a  question  of  Meletius  and  of  Eusebius  of 
Samosata,  he  did  not  hesitate  to  display  his  aversion  for 
them,  and  went  so  far  as  to  treat  them  as  Arians. 
Dorotheus  at  last  lost  patience,  and  attacked  the  Pope 
of  Alexandria  with  some  vehemence.  Peter  complained 
of  this  to  Basil.  Basil  expressed  his  regret,^  but  at  the 
same  time  drew  his  attention  to  the  fact  that  Meletius  and 
Eusebius,  two  confessors  of  the  faith,  who  had  been  exiled 
by  the  Arians,  deserved  the  respect  of  their  colleagues  ;  as 
to  their  orthodoxy  on  all  the  disputed  points,  he  was 
certain  of  it,  and  would  guarantee  it. 

Meletius,  Basil,  and  their  party  represented,  generally 
speaking,  an  evolution  to  the  right  by  the  old  party  of 
opposition  to  the  Council  of  Nicaea.  It  was  not  the  only 
party  which  circumstances  had  led  to  moderate  their  first 
attitude.  At  the  opposite  extreme,  the  old  adversary  of 
the  "  Easterns,"  the  man  against  whom,  from  Eusebius  of 
Caesarea  to  St  Basil,  they  had  never  ceased  to  fight, 
Marcellus  of  Ancyra,  Marcellus  the  "  Sabellian,"  was  going 
through  an  evolution  on  his  side  or,  rather,  an  evolution 
was  going  on  around  him.  He  was  not  yet  dead  when 
Basil  became  bishop.  He  was  living  in  retirement  at 
Ancyra,  with  a  few  clergy  and  a  certain  number  of 
adherents,  who  formed  around  him  a  Little  Church.  The 
official  bishop,  Athanasius,  he  who  gave  his  adhesion,  in 
363,  to  the  Council  of  Nicaea,  thought  it  his  duty  to  harass 
this  little  group.  Marcellus  had  long  been  estranged  from 
the  Bishop  of  Alexandria,  his  former  companion  in  the 
struggles  at  Rome  and  at  Sardica.  But  this  did  not 
hinder  him  from  appealing  to  him.     One  of  his  clergy, 

1  Ep.  266. 


r.  415]  DEATH  OF  MARCELLUS  331 

the  deacon  Eugenius,  was  sent  to  Alexandria  with 
recommendations  furnished  by  the  Bishops  of  Greece 
and  of  Macedonia.  He  presented  a  profession  of  faith,^ 
in  which  the  former  doctrines  of  Marcellus  were  either 
toned  down  or  cloaked ;  however,  it  did  not  go  so  far 
as  to  speak  of  the  three  hypostases.  Athanasius,  as  we 
have  seen,  if  he  did  not  rule  out  this  expression,  certainly 
did  not  lay  stress  on  it.  He  gave  letters  of  communion 
to  Marcellus'  deacon  and  to  his  Little  Church.  This 
happened,  I  think,  at  the  same  time  as  the  Council  of 
Alexandria,  in  362.  Marcellus  died  about  the  year  375  ; 
he  must  have  been  over  ninety ,2  and  it  is  perhaps  on 
account  of  his  great  age  that  we  hear  no  more  of  him  in 
these  latter  days.  Thus  deprived  of  its  head,  and  repulsed 
by  Basil  and  his  supporters,  who  continually  invoked 
against  it  the  anathemas  of  the  West,  his  party  addressed 
themselves  to  the  Egyptian  bishops,  who  were  living  in 
exile  at  Diocjesarea  in  Palestine.  These  confessors,  to 
whom  they  presented,  together  with  a  profession  of  faith,^ 
the  letters  of  communion  given  them  in  former  days  by 
St  Athanasius,  made  no  difficulty  about  admitting  them. 
But  Basil,  to  whom  they  next  addressed  themselves, 
thought  that  the  exiles  had  been  too  hasty  in  the  matter, 
and  such  was  also  the  opinion  of  Peter  of  Alexandria.^ 
Basil  asked  for  nothing  better  than  to  welcome  the 
Galatians  ;  but  he  wished  them  to  come  to  him,  and  not 
that  they  should  presume  to  draw  him  to  themselves. 

This  affair,  like  several  others,  was  still  pending,  when, 
in  378,  events  of  great  importance  occurred  to  modify  the 
political  and  religious  situation  in  the  Eastern  empire. 
Two  years  before,  the  Goths  established  beyond  the 
Danube  had  found  themselves  attacked  by  the  Huns  who 
came  from  the  Ural.  Driven  back  by  these  savage  hordes, 
they  had  asked  for  shelter  on  imperial  territory,  and  had 
been  allowed  to  settle  in  Thrace,  upon  certain  conditions, 

1  Mansi,  Concilia,  vol.  iii.,  p.  469. 

"  He  was  already  bishop  in  314,  at  the  time  of  the  Council  of 
Ancyra. 

^  Epiphanius,  Hacr.  Ixxii.  11.  ■*  Basil,  Ep.  266. 


332  BASIL  OF  C^SAREA  [ch.  xi. 

among  which  was  a  promise  to  furnish  them  with  means 
of  support.  The  government  of  Valens  organized  this 
supply  with  so  little  conscience  and  humanity,  that  the 
immigrants  revolted  (376).  It  was  necessary  to  under- 
take a  regular  campaign  against  them,  which  finally  took 
such  a  turn  for  the  worse  that  Valens  was  obliged  to 
intervene  in  person.  Before  he  left  Antioch,  moved  by  a 
wise  clemency,  he  revoked  the  sentences  of  exile  pronounced 
against  ecclesiastical  persons.^ 

Valens  arrived  at  Constantinople  on  May  30,  and  -  set 
out  again  a  few  days  later  to  direct  the  military  operations 
in  Thrace.  On  August  9  he  delivered  battle.  The  Roman 
army  suffered  a  terrible  defeat,  in  which  the  emperor 
disappeared  —  either  because  his  corpse  could  not  be 
recognized  among  the  dead,  or  because,  according  to  a 
rumour  which  gained  credence,  he  had  perished  in  the 
burning  of  a  cottage,  to  which  he  had  been  carried  in 
order  that  his  wounds  might  be  cared  for. 

'  Jerome,  Chron. :  "  Valens  de  Antiochia  exire  compulsus  sera 
poenitentia  nostros  de  exilio  revocat." — Rufin.  H.  E.  ii.  13:  "Turn 
vero  Valentis  bella  quae  ecclesiis  inferebat  in  hostem  coepta  converti, 
seraque  poenitentia  episcopos  et  presbyteros  relaxari  exiliis  ac  de 
metallis  resolvi  monachos  iubet." 

2  According  to  a  legend  related  by  Sozomen  (vi.  40),  and  adopted 
also,  with  some  alteration,  by  Theodoret  (iv.  31),  a  monk  of 
Constantinople,  Isaac,  had  in  vain  adjured  him  to  restore  the  churches 
to  the  Catholics.  This  story,  doubtful  enough  in  itself,  cannot  be  set 
against  the  testimonies  of  St  Jerome  and  Rufinus,  who  were  living  at 
that  time  in  the  East,  as  to  the  recall  of  the  exiles  by  Valens  him- 
self;  besides,  the  recall  of  the  exiles  is  quite  a  different  thing  from 
their  reinstatement  in  the  place  and  position  of  the  official  clergy. 


CHAPTER  XII 

GREGORY   OF   NAZIANZUS 

Gratian  and  Theodosius.  Return  of  the  exiled  bishops.  Death  of 
Basil.  The  Easterns  accept  the  conditions  of  Rome.  Attitude 
of  Theodosius.  Situation  at  Constantinople.  Gregory  of 
Nazianzus  and  his  church,  the  "  Anastasis."  Conflicts  with  the 
Arians.  Alexandrian  opposition  :  Maximus  the  Cynic.  Gregory 
at  St  Sophia.  The  Second  QEcumenical  Council  (381). 
Obstinacy  of  the  Macedonians.  Installation  of  Gregory. 
Death  of  Meletius :  difficulties  with  regard  to  his  successor. 
Resignation  of  Gregory.  Nectarius.  The  canons.  Hostility 
against  Alexandria.  Flavian  elected  at  Antioch.  Protests  of 
St  Ambrose.     Roman  Council  in  382.     Letter  from  the  Easterns. 

Gratian,  warned  of  the  danger,  but  detained  in  Gaul  by 
an  invasion  of  the  Alamanni,  which  was  stayed  by  the 
battle  of  Colmar,  arrived  in  time,  in  spite  of  all  difficulties, 
on  the  Lower  Danube.  Valens  should  have  awaited  his 
arrival,  in  order  that  the  Goths,  being  caught  between 
the  two  armies,  might  have  been  easily  overcome.  After 
the  disaster,  the  young  emperor  of  the  West — he  was  not 
twenty — first  of  all  took  steps  to  improve  the  situation  ; 
and  then,  not  feeling  strong  enough  to  govern  by  him- 
self both  parts  of  the  empire,  shifted  the  burden  of 
the  East  from  his  own  shoulders  to  those  of  one  of  his 
generals,  Theodosius,  who  was  proclaimed  Augustus  at 
Sirmium  on  January  16,  379.  Some  time  ere  this  Gratian 
had  hastened  to  ratify  and  to  extend  the  measures  already 
taken  by  Valens  for  the  recall  of  the  exiled  bishops. 
Meletius  reappeared  at  Antioch,  Eusebius  at  Samosata  ; 
all  the  confessors  reassumed  the  government  of  their 
churches. 


334  GREGORY  OF  NAZIANZUS  [cii.  xii. 

One  of  the  first  to  return  was  Peter  of  Alexandria. 
Before  allowing  him  to  leave  Rome,  Damasus  had 
caused  him  to  be  present  at  a  council,  at  which  it  was 
finally  decided  to  condemn  by  name  Apollinaris  and  one 
of  his  principal  lieutenants,  Timothy,  who  had  just  been 
made  Bishop  at  Berytus.  Peter  set  out  immediately 
after.  No  sooner  had  he  disembarked  at  Alexandria 
than  a  popular  outbreak  drove  Lucius  from  the  city ; 
he  hastened  to  take  refuge  at  Constantinople,  where, 
although  the  Emperor  Valens  was  gone,  he  found  at 
any  rate  the  hospitality  of  the  Bishop  Demophilus,  still 
as  always  holding  his  position,  and  determined  not  to 
give  it  up  till  the  last  moment. 

It  was  just  at  this  time  that  Basil  died,  on  January  i, 
379.  He  had  not  completed  his  fiftieth  year ;  his  career 
might  well  have  been  a  more  protracted  one  ;  his  endur- 
ance of  adversity  gave  reason  to  look  forward  to  what  he 
would  have  been  in  prosperity.  But  his  health,  always 
poor,  had  not  been  made  any  stronger  by  the  imprudences 
of  asceticism  and  the  fatigues  of  his  episcopate.  Among 
all  his  sufferings,  he  complains  specially  of  a  liver 
complaint,  which  we  might  suspect,  apart  from  this 
testimony,  from  the  restless  and  embittered  tone  of  his 
correspondence.  Exposed  to  the  often  brutal  ill-will  of 
the  government,  to  opposition  from  ecclesiastics,  opposition 
for  the  most  part  stupid  but  arising  from  several  different 
causes,  and,  for  that  very  reason,  difficult  to  overcome ; 
deprived  of  coadjutors  of  any  value,  for  notwithstanding 
their  friendship  and  their  ability,  his  brother  Gregory  of 
Nyssa  and  his  friend  Gregory  of  Nazianzus  were  more 
of  a  hindrance  than  a  help  to  him ;  Basil  brought  to  the 
service  of  a  programme  of  reconciliation,  a  natural 
temperament  at  once  too  sensitive  and  too  pugnacious. 
Hence  arose  an  endless  series  of  failures.  In  the  affair 
of  Eustathius,  we  see  him,  to  satisfy  the  fierce  consubstan- 
tialists,  holding  a  knife  to  the  throat  of  an  old  friend,  a 
venerable  bishop,  and  the  result  which  he  achieved  was 
that,  in  spite  of  this  sacrifice,  the  irreconcilable  Atarbius 
of  Neocaesarea  could  not  endure  him,  fled  at  his  approach, 


p.  420]  CHARACTER  OF  BASIL  335 

and  kept  his  flock  in  such  a  state  of  terror  by  his 
threatening  dreams,  that  they  revolted  against  the 
Bishop  of  Caesarea,  their  compatriot  and  the  glory  of 
their  country.  Basil  desired  that  Meletius  should  be 
recognized  as  Bishop  of  Antioch,  and  fought  doggedly  to 
that  end,  without  considering  the  difficult  position  in 
which  such  an  event  would  place  the  Churches  of  Rome 
and  Alexandria.  He  was  opposed ;  and  he  lost  his 
temper,  and  expressed  himself  in  no  measured  terms. 
Even  in  his  own  country  and  his  own  ecclesiastical  circle, 
his  influence  was  vigorously  opposed.  Some  people  have 
wished  to  see  in  him  the  founder  of  a  kind  of  Patriarchate, 
with  a  jurisdiction  corresponding  to  the  "diocese"  of  Pontus. 
But  it  is  evident  that  he  had  no  authority  in  the  Western 
provinces,  those  of  Bithynia,  Galatia,  and  Paphlagonia. 
The  bishops  of  the  sea-board  of  Pontus^  did  not 
trouble  themselves  about  him.^  In  the  interior,  when 
the  sees  were  not  occupied  by  Arians,  as  at  Amasia  and 
in  the  Armenian  Tetrapolis,  their  occupants  were  quarrel- 
ling with  each  other ;  some  approved  of  the  monks,  others 
would  have  none  of  them  ;  some  thought  that,  on  the 
question  as  to  the  Trinity,  Basil  inclined  too  much  to 
the  right ;  others  deplored  his  making  concessions  to 
the  left.  Had  he  been  blessed  with  good  health,  the 
noble  soul  of  the  Bishop  of  Caesarea  might  perhaps  have 
risen  above  all  these  miseries.  But  the  bodily  machine 
refused  to  act ;  the  pilot  died,  worn  out,  just  when  the 
tempest  was  abating. 

It  was  a  bitter  day  for  the  pontiffs  of  official  Arianism 
when  they  heard  of  the  recall  of  their  exiled  rivals ! 
Besides,  this  was  only  a  preliminary  measure.  They 
knew  the  sympathies  of  the  young  emperor,  and  they 
had  doubts  as  to  what  would  come  next.  At  Antioch, 
Meletius,  confronted  by  special  difficulties,  quickly  grasped 
a  situation  now  much  simplified.  To  come  to  an  under- 
standing with  Rome  had  been,  under  Valens,  a  thing 
greatly  to  be  desired ;  under  Gratian  and  Theodosius,  it 

*  Sinope,  Amisos  (Samsoun),  Polemonion,  Kerassond,  Trebizond. 

2  Ep.  203. 


336  GREGORY  OF  NAZIANZUS  [ch.  xii. 

was  the  one  and  only  solution.  Basil,  who  perhaps 
might  have  had  scruples,  was  no  longer  there  to  suggest 
conditions.  A  council  of  one  hundred  and  fifty -three 
bishops  assembled  in  the  Syrian  metropolis  during 
the  autumn  1  of  379,  and  voted  an  unqualified  adhesion 
to  the  Roman  formularies.^ 

They  thus  anticipated  the  intentions  of  Theodosius. 
The  new  emperor  had  settled  at  Thessalonica.  He  fell 
ill  there  during  the  winter,  and  was  baptized  by  Bishop 
Acholius,  a  decided  Nicene.  In  an  edict,^  dated  February 
27,  380,  Theodosius  declared  to  his  people  that  they  must 
all  profess  the  religion  which  "the  Apostle  Peter  had 
taught  in  days  of  old  to  the  Romans,  and  which  was  now 
followed  by  the  Pontiff  Damasus  and  by  Peter,  Bishop  of 
Alexandria,  a  man  of  Apostolic  sanctity."  That  party 
alone  had  any  right  to  the  title  of  "  Catholics  "  ;  all  others 
were  heretics;  their  conventicles  were  not  regarded  as 
churches,  and  they  were  threatened  with  penalties. 

1  Nine  months  after  the  death  of  Basil,  says  Gregory  of  Nyssa, 
De  vita  Sanctae  Macrinae  (Migne,  P.  G.,  vol.  xlvi.,  p.  973). 

2  We  still  possess  (Constant,  Efi.  Rom.  Ponti/.,  p.  500)  the 
signatures  (seven  formally  set  out,  the  others  summarized)  which 
were  appended  to  this  document.  There  is  no  doubt  about  the 
meaning  of  the  formulary.  As  to  the  terms  of  it,  that  is  not  so  easy 
to  decide.  The  signatures  are  attached,  in  the  MSS.  where  they  are 
found,  to  a  collection  composed  of  the  letter  of  Damasus,  Confiditmis 
quidetn,  and  of  the  three  fragments,  Ea  gratia,  lllud  sane  iniramur, 
and  Non  nobis  qiddquam  (see  above,  pp.  320,  325,  329).  But  this 
collection  of  documents  is  very  incoherent.  It  is  clear  that  it  only 
represents  an  extract  from  a  more  extensive  collection.  The  Easterns 
would  assuredly  not  have  signed  the  letter  Confidimus  if  it  stood 
alone  for  in  it  we  find  the  term  una  substantia  Q-/j.ia  virdaraais:'), 
against  which  they  had  always  protested.  But  this  term  might  be 
considered  as  explained  by  the  subsequent  letters,  in  one  of 
which  it  is  replaced  by  the  expression  una  usia.  It  is  possible, 
therefore,  that  they  may  have  given  their  adhesion  to  the  views 
contained  in  the  dossier  as  a  whole.  In  any  case  their  adhesion 
must  have  been  drawn  up  in  a  special  formula,  which  the  author  of 
our  extracts  has  neglected.  The  formula  by  which  he  introduces 
the  signatures,  and  the  explicit  which  comes  after,  presuppose  a 
close  connection  between  the  Council  of  Antioch  and  the  Roman 
documents  which  precede  it. 

^  Cod.  Theod.  xvi.  i,  2. 


p.  422-3]      roSITION  UNDER  THEODOSIUS  337 

At  Antioch,  the  orthodox,  both  those  who  belonged  to 
the  Great  Church  (the  party  of  Meletius)  and  those  who 
belonged    to   the    Little   Church  (the  party  of  Paulinus) 
were  numerous.     They  could  await  with  quiet  confidence 
the  executive  measures  which  would  hand  over  to  them 
the  ecclesiastical  buildings  still  held  from  them,  no  longer 
by  Euzoius,  who    had  been  dead  some  time,  but  by  his 
successor,  Dorotheus.     The  situation  was  not  so  clear  at 
Constantinople.     There,  the  Arian  party  was  strong.     Its 
leader,  Demophilus,  was    enthroned    at    St    Sophia ;    the 
clergy  under   his   orders   were   in    possession    of  all    the 
churches.     Those   in    opposition   to   him,  whether    Mace- 
donians or  Nicenes,  were  rigorously  excluded  from  them, 
just   as  the   adherents  of  Meletius  and  Paulinus  were  at 
Antioch.     At  the  advent  of  Demophilus,  the  Nicenes  had 
tried  to  appoint  a  bishop  of  their  own,  in  the  person  of  a 
certain  Evagrius  ;  he  was  immediately  seized  by  the  police, 
and  imprisoned  at  Berea,  where  he  seems  to  have  died, 
for  we  hear  of  him    no   more.     Now  that  the  times  had 
become  more  favourable,  the  Nicenes  felt  the  necessity  of 
union    and    organization.      The    neo-orthodox    party    of 
the  East  hastened  to   assist  them,  being  anxious  that  the 
place  of  Demophilus  should  be  given  to  one  of  their  own 
friends,  and  above  all  to  prevent  the  Apollinarians,  who 
were  already  on  the  move,  from  seizing  upon  it  for  them- 
selves.     Negotiations  followed,  at  the  conclusion  of  which, 
Gregory,  the  son  of  the   old    Bishop  of   Nazianzus,  was 
chosen  as  the  Shepherd  of  this  little  flock. 

Ever  since  the  death  of  his  parents  in  375,  Gregory, 
free  at  last  to  follow  his  vocation  to  asceticism,  had  fled 
from  Nazianzus.  Leaving  Basil  to  extricate  himself  as 
best  he  could  from  the  difficulties  which  besieged  him  on 
every  side,  he  had  taken  refuge  in  the  monastery  of  St 
Thecla  at  Seleucia  in  Isauria.  It  was  there  that  he  heard 
of  the  defeat  of  Valens  and  the  death  of  Basil.  After 
refusing  many  entreaties,  he  at  last  consented  to  the 
request  made  to  him,  and  went  to  Constantinople,  where 
he  opened  a  Little  Church  in  the  house  of  one  of  his 
relations.  The  orthodox  party  gathered  round  him. 
II  Y 


338  GREGORY  OF  NAZIANZUS  [ch.  xii. 

His  signal  uprightness  of  character  and,  above  all,  his 
wonderful  eloquence,  soon  drew  together  a  considerable 
body  of  hearers.  The  Church  of  Constantinople,  oppressed 
for  forty  years  by  violence  and  intrigue,  came  to  life  again 
in  that  humble  edifice.  Gregory  himself  had  given  to  his 
chapel  the  name  of  Resurrection  (Anastasis).  It  was  there 
that,  among  so  many  other  homilies,  he  pronounced  his 
five  Discourses  upon  the  Trinity — classic  specimens  of 
Greek  theology.  The  dissenting  oratory,  thanks  to  the 
golden  eloquence  of  this  first  of  Chrysostoms,  became 
more  frequented  and  better  attended  than  the  official 
basilicas.  The  Arians  were  much  disturbed.  During  the 
night  before  Easter  Sunday  (379)  a  furious  crowd  rushed 
from  St  Sophia  to  attack  the  Anastasis,  where  Gregory 
was  baptizing  his  neophytes.  The  crowd  consisted  of  the 
virgins  and  monks  of  the  Arian  Church,  drawing  in  their 
wake  the  poor  assisted  by  their  charity,  a  docile  following 
of  the  dominant  clergy.  It  seemed  to  Gregory  as  if  he 
saw  a  party  of  Corybants  with  Fauns  and  Maenads. 
Stones  flew  through  the  air  against  the  Catholics  ;  some  of 
them  struck  the  bishop ;  one  of  his  people  was  beaten 
and  left  for  dead.^  Yet  none  the  less  he  himself  was  held 
responsible  for  the  disorder,  and  dragged  before  the 
courts. 

He  could  make  light  of  this  ill-treatment  from  a 
quarter  from  which  it  was  only  to  be  expected.  But  far 
more  grievous  to  him  were  the  internal  disputes  of  his 
little  community.  The  reaction  from  the  schism  of  Antioch 
was  felt  there.  Gregory,  who  held  strongly  to  the  three 
hypostases,  found  himself  treated  as  a  tri-theist.  He  was 
asked  if  he  were  for  Paul  or  for  Apollos,  i.e.,  for  Meletius  or 
for  Paulinus.  He  would  have  preferred  to  be  only  for 
Christ ;  but  that  was  difficult. 

Far  away  in  Alexandria,  the  Patriarch  Peter  was 
keeping  a  watchful  eye  upon  what  was  happening  at 
Constantinople,  and,  being  always  dominated  by  his  old 
resentment  against  the  Easterns,  the  former  persecutors 
of  his  brother  Athanasius,  he  was  disturbed  to  see  the 
^  Details  in  Or.  35  ;  Ep.  jy  ;  Carmen  de  Vita.,  vv.  Ssi-SjS. 


r.  425]  iMAXIiMUS  TllK  CVNK*  339 

Cappadocian  orator,  the  friend  of  Basil  and  of  Meletius, 
in  a  fair  way  to  inherit  at  Constantinople  the  succession 
of  the  Arians.  At  the  outset  he  had  written  to  Gregory 
in  very  friendly  tones ;  Gregory,  on  his  part,  preached 
a  panegyric  on  Athanasius.  At  the  Anastasis,  they  felt 
quite  secure  about  Alexandria.  Hence  they  gave  a  warm 
welcome  to  a  person,  albeit  a  very  extraordinary  one,  who 
came  from  that  country.  This  was  a  certain  Maximus,  a 
Cynic  philosopher,  who  had  found  a  way  to  combine  the 
observances  of  his  sect  with  the  profession  of  Christianity. 
Athanasius  had  corresponded  with  him.^  He  had  had  in 
more  than  one  place  difficulties  with  the  police ;  but,  as  he 
said  that  he  had  been  persecuted  for  the  faith,  that  fact 
only  gave  him  another  claim  on  the  good-will  of  guileless 
people.  Among  their  number,  we  must  admit,  might  be 
included  the  illustrious  man  whom  circumstances  had 
placed  at  the  head  of  the  Catholics  of  Constantinople.  In 
spite  of  his  staff,  his  philosopher's  cloak,  and  his  long  hair, 
Maximus  was  treated  by  Gregory  as  a  confessor  of  the 
faith,  and  as  an  intimate  friend  ;  he  took  him  into  his 
house,  gave  him  a  place  at  his  table,  and  trusted  him  with 
his  complete  confidence.  That  nothing  might  be  wanting 
to  these  friendly  demonstrations,  Gregory  also  honoured 
him  by  a  fine  panegyric,  pronounced  in  church  in  the 
presence  of  its  hero.-  On  his  side,  Maximus  was  most 
attentive  to  Gregory's  sermons,  applauded  him  in  church, 
and  supported  him  outside  by  the  popularity  which  he 
enjoyed  in  certain  circles. 

Now  this  Maximus  was  Bishop  Peter's  candidate  for 
the  see  of  Constantinople.  If  he  was  now  with  Gregory, 
it  was  to  rob  him  of  his  bishopric.  One  night  the  doors 
of  the  Church  of  the  Anastasis,  thanks  to  the  complicity 
of  a  priest,  were  opened  to  give  admission  to  a  strange 
assembly.  Sailors  from  the  corn  ships,  just  arrived  from 
Alexandria,  escorted  a  group  of  bishops  of  their  country, 
who  at  once  proceeded  to  the  task  of  the  election  and 
consecration   of  Maximus    as    Bishop  of  Constantinople. 

1  Ep.  ad  Maximum  philosophum  (Migne,  P.  G.,  vol.xxvi.,  p.  1085). 

-  Or.  25. 


340  GREGORY  OF  NAZIANZUS  [ch.  xii. 

Gregory,  some  distance  away,  was  sleeping  uneasily,  for 
he  was  ill ;  his  faithful  clergy  too  were  slumbering.  The 
ceremony  began.  The  custom  of  that  day  did  not  allow 
clerics  to  wear  their  hair  long.  It  was  necessary,  therefore, 
as  Gregory  said  when  he  told  the  story  later  in  the 
language  of  satire,  "  to  shear  the  dog  upon  the  episcopal 
throne."  The  result  of  this  operation  was  the  discovery 
that  much  of  this  celebrated  head  of  hair  was  artificial. 
The  ceremony  was  not  over  when  the  dawn  brought  people 
to  the  church.  A  fine  tumult  ensued.  The  Egyptians, 
terrified,  retired  in  disorder,  and  only  found  refuge  with 
a  musician  in  the  neighbourhood.  There,  in  a  wretched 
hovel,  they  finished  their  ceremony. 

One  can  imagine  the  position  of  Gregory,  He  was 
greatly  distressed,  angry  with  himself  for  his  simplicity, 
and  he  wished  to  go  away.  But  his  faithful  flock  watched 
him  carefully.  In  one  of  his  discourses,  they  thought 
they  discovered  an  intention  to  fly.  They  surrounded 
him  and  beset  him  with  a  thousand  entreaties.  As  he 
still  seemed  determined,  they  said,  "  If  you  go,  you  will 
take  the  Trinity  with  you."  Gregory  understood,  and 
remained.  In  the  meantime  the  new  bishop,  accompanied 
by  his  consecrators,  repaired  to  Thessalonica  to  obtain  the 
recognition  of  Theodosius.  He  was  quite  mistaken.  The 
emperor  knew  everything,  and  repulsed  him  harshly. 
Maximus  then  embarked  for  Alexandria,  where  he 
solicited  the  support  of  Bishop  Peter.  The  latter  was 
in  a  very  difficult  position.  The  matter  had  not  gone 
well  at  Constantinople;  the  emperor  was  displeased;  and, 
as  a  climax,  Pope  Damasus,  being  informed  by  Acholius 
and  his  Macedonian  colleagues,  protested  strongly  against 
the  attempt.^  Peter's  punishment  came  from  the  same 
quarter  as  his  sin.  His  Bishop  of  Constantinople  stirred 
up  a  riot  against  him  at  Alexandria  to  force  his  support. 
The  prefect  had  to  intervene,  and  banished  the  episcopal 
Cynic  to  a  place  where  he  could  no  longer  disturb  the 
tranquillity  of  the  streets. 

We   learn   from    these   events  that  Gregory,  notwith- 
I  Jaffe,  237,  238. 


p.  428]         AFFAIRS  AT  CONSTANTINOPLE  341 

standing  his  indisputable  sanctity  and  his  eloquence,  was 
a  little  wanting  in  practical  common  sense.  He  was 
certainly  not  pleasing  to  Peter  of  Alexandria,  whose  merits 
the  imperial  rescript  of  February  27  had  so  highly  praised. 
Was  he  really  the  man  needed,  just  then,  at  the  head 
of  the  Church  of  Constantinople  ?  Theodosius,  a  strong 
man  himself,  must  have  had  doubts  like  these.  But,  for 
the  moment,  he  refrained  from  settling  the  matter.  He 
could  not,  however,  allow  an  indefinite  prolongation  of 
the  state  of  uncertainty  which  existed  in  the  capital 
with  regard  to  religious  affairs.  He  had  hitherto  been 
detained  at  Thessalonica  by  his  military  operations 
against  the  Goths.  As  soon  as  his  hands  were  free  there, 
he  turned  towards  Constantinople,  which  he  entered  on 
November  24,  380. 

Two  days  afterwards,  the  churches  were  taken  from 
the  Arians  and  restored  to  the  Catholics.  Demophilus 
showed  no  more  inclination  at  the  last  moment  than 
previously  to  accept  the  Creed  of  Nicsea.  He  left  the 
city.  On  November  26,  the  emperor  conducted  Gregory 
to  St  Sophia.  An  enormous  crowd  congregated  on  the 
route — not  altogether  a  friendly  crowd,  far  from  it,  but  a 
large  display  of  military  force  secured  order.  Behind  the 
vigorous  and  imposing  prince,  the  blue  bird  of  Cappadocia 
led  the  triumph  of  orthodoxy.  The  weather  was  grey  ; 
autumn  clouds  veiled  the  morning  sky.  Was  the  rain 
going  to  fall  upon  the  Council  of  Nicaea?  Arians  and 
Catholics  looked  up  to  the  heavens  with  very  different 
desires.  Gregory  entered  the  darkened  basilica,  and, 
while  the  imperial  procession  took  its  place  in  the 
tribunes,  he  sat  down  in  the  apse  beside  the  episcopal 
throne.  Just  at  that  moment,  the  sun,  bursting  through 
the  clouds,  shed  its  rays  through  all  the  windows ;  it 
saluted  the  victory.  Shouts  rang  out :  "  Gregory,  Bishop  !  " 
But  Gregory,  bewildered  and  speechless,  proved  unequal 
to  the  greatness  of  the  occasion.  In  his  stead,  another 
bishop  called  upon  all  those  present  to  recall  their  thoughts 
for  the  celebration  of  the  sacred  mysteries. 

From  that  day  forward  the  Anastasis  was  abandoned  ; 


342  GREGORY  OF  NAZIANZUS  [ch.  xtt. 

it  was  at  St  Sophia  that  the  eloquence  of  orthodoxy 
resounded.  Under  the  roof  which  had  once  sheltered 
Eudoxius,  the  Saint  of  Nazianzus  set  in  order  his  life 
of  austerity  and  devotion.  It  was  not  without  difficulty 
that  he  could  set  his  hand  to  the  reorganization  of  his  great 
church.  Many  interests  found  themselves  injured  ;  and 
Gregory  was  the  object  of  an  attempt  at  assassination. 
But  the  local  opposition  was  gradually  disarmed  ;  and  the 
illustrious  bishop  saw  the  moment  arriving  when  his 
position  was  finally  to  be  regularized  and  strengthened. 
Theodosius  had  decided  to  gather  together  in  a  great 
council  the  episcopate  of  the  Eastern  empire.  To  this 
assembly  he  had  committed  the  task  of  providing,  in  a 
definite  manner,  for  the  government  of  the  Church  of 
Constantinople. 

Notices  of  convocation  were  sent  out.  There  is  every 
appearance  that  at  first  invitations  were  not  sent  to  the 
bishops  of  Egypt,  nor  to  those  of  Eastern  Illyricum, 
of  whom  the  most  distinguished  was  the  metropolitan  of 
Thessalonica.  At  all  events  these  bishops  did  not  arrive 
till  much  later  than  the  others.  Paulinus  did  not  appear 
at  all ;  nor  did  the  few  bishops  in  communion  with  him, 
such  as  Diodore  of  Tyre  and  Epiphanius  of  Salamis. 
Meletius  arrived  early,  escorted  by  seventy  bishops  from 
the  "diocese"  of  the  Orient.  Helladius,  the  new  Bishop 
of  Caesarea  in  Cappadocia,  also  came,  with  the  two  brothers 
of  Basil,  Gregory  and  Peter ;  then  came  his  friends, 
Amphilochius  of  Iconium  and  Optimus  of  Antioch  in 
Pisidia  ;  and  last,  some  fifty  bishops  from  Southern  Asia 
Minor,  Lycia,  Pamphylia,  Pisidia,  and  Lycaonia.  On  the 
whole,  this  assemblage  of  bishops  represented  fairly  well 
the  immediate  followers  of  Basil.  His  bodily  presence 
was  wanting  to  his  victory ;  but  his  spirit  pervaded  the 
assembly.  From  Galatia  and  from  Paphlagonia,  where  the 
bishoprics  were  still  occupied  by  Arians,  there  came  no 
one.  Neither  do  we  find  among  the  signatories  the  name 
of  any  bishop  of  Western  Asia  Minor.  In  these  countries 
there  prevailed  the  semi-Arian  or  Macedonian  confession, 
promulgated  anew  in  the  recent  councils  held  at  Cyzicus 


p.  430]     COUNCIL  OF  CONSTANTINOPLE,  381        343 

and  at  Antioch  in  Caria.^  Yet  Theodosius  had  thought 
it  his  duty  to  summon  also  the  bishops  of  that  shade  of 
opinion.  Some  of  them  came,  thirty-six  in  all,  headed 
by  their  old  leader,  Eleusius  of  Cyzicus,  the  famous 
champion  of  the  Jwvio'iousios,  and  by  his  colleague,  Marcian 
of  Lampsacus.  Eustathius  of  Sebaste  was  no  longer  alive 
to  join  them.  His  death  took  place  either  shortly  before 
or  after  that  of  his  old  friend  Basil ;  it  was  Basil's  youngest 
brother,  Peter,  who  had  replaced  him  as  Bishop  of  Sebaste. 

It  was  in  vain  that  the  orthodox  party  discussed 
matters  long  and  amicably  with  their  opponents,  and  that, 
in  a  homily-  delivered  at  St  Sophia  on  the  Feast  of 
Pentecost  (May  i6),  Gregory  treated  with  the  utmost 
circumspection  the  subject  of  the  Holy  Spirit ;  Eleusius 
and  his  followers  obstinately  maintained  their  attitude. 
It  was  necessary  to  make  up  one's  mind  to  a  separation 
from  them.  This  was  done  with  all  the  more  regret, 
because,  whether  at  Constantinople  or  elsewhere,  the 
"  Macedonians  "  numbered  in  their  ranks  many  estimable 
persons. 

The  question  of  the  Bishop  of  the  see  of  Constantinople 
was  easily  settled  in  a  friendly  assembly.  It  was  only  a 
matter  of  form,  for  Gregory  was  very  evidently,  and  had 
long  been,  the  candidate  of  Meletius ;  the  support  of  all 
the  Easterns  was  assured  to  him.  We  can  imagine  how 
glad  the  brothers  and  the  friends  of  Basil  were  to  give  him 
their  votes.  No  opposition  was  manifested.  No  one 
could  take  seriously  the  claims  of  Maximus  the  Cynic, 
repudiated  as  he  was  in  the  East  by  everyone,  even  by 
the  Egyptians.  As  to  the  forced  consecration  which 
Gregory  had  received  from  Basil,  everyone  knew  that  it 

1  On  the  Council  of  Cyzicus  {supra,  p.  328)  see  Basil,  Ep.  244,  §  9. 
That  of  Antioch  in  Caria  is  placed  by  Socrates  {H.  E.  v.  4,  with  the 
mistake  rfjs  St-ptas)  and  by  Sozomen  {H.  E.  vii.  2)  shortly  after  the 
accession  of  Gratian.  Sozomen  mentions  elsewhere  (vi.  12)  another 
council  held  in  Caria  by  thirty-four  bishops,  at  the  time  fixed  for  the 
meeting  of  the  Council  of  Tarsus  {supra,  p.  293),  i.e.,  about  twelve 
years  earlier.  It  is  probable  that  these  two  assemblies  were  really 
only  one,  and  that  it  should  be  placed  in  378  or  379. 

-  (?r.  41, 


344  GREGORY  OF  NAZIANZUS  [ch.  xii. 

had  not  been  followed  by  any  taking  possession  of  his 
diocese  ;  that  the  so-called  Bishop  of  Sasima  had  continu- 
ally protested  against  the  violence  done  to  him ;  that  he 
had  never  exercised  any  episcopal  functions  at  Sasima ; 
and  that,  if  he  had  exercised  them  at  Nazianzus,  it  was 
only  as  assistant  to  his  father,  never  as  bishop  of  the  see. 
It  could  not  therefore  be  said  that  he  was  transferring 
himself  from  one  diocese  to  another.  It  was  from  solitude, 
and  not  from  another  bishopric,  that  he  had  come  to 
Constantinople. 

All  this  was  clear  as  daylight.  Gregory  was  fully 
installed  by  the  council,  and  by  its  chief,  Meletius.  Twenty 
years  had  passed  away  since  the  latter  had  himself  been 
called  to  the  see  of  Antioch  by  the  leaders  of  the  Arian 
party  of  that  time,  the  friends  of  EuzoTus  and  of  Acacius, 
of  Dorotheus  and  Demophilus.  If  Gregory  had  not  signed 
the  Creed  of  Ariminum,  his  father,  the  Bishop  of 
Nazianzus,  had  done  so.  If  the  council  was  not  an 
assembly  of  converts,  at  least  many  of  its  members  must 
have  had  embarrassing  memories.  As  a  whole,  they 
were  returning  from  afar.  But  they  had  suffered  enough 
under  Valens  not  to  be  troubled  under  Theodosius  by 
a  past  which  was  already  distant.  Although  they  had 
formerly  been  obliged  either  to  keep  silence  or  to  sign, 
they  had  none  the  less  kept  the  true  faith  ;  they  had  known 
how  to  maintain  it  at  the  cost  of  the  severest  sacrifices ; 
and  it  was  with  sincere  hearts  that  they  acclaimed  it  in 
times  of  peace.  And  what  they  had  done,  they  had  done 
quite  alone,  kept  at  a  distance  and  distrusted  by  the 
Western  Church  and  the  Egyptians.  They  were  even 
conscious  of  having  defended  against  their  misgivings  the 
formula  of  the  three  hypostases,  the  necessary  complement 
to  the  Hovioousios  of  Nicaea.  Basil  was  victorious  all 
down  the  line.  When  his  friend  Meletius,  whom  he  had 
so  perseveringly  defended,  took  the  hand  of  Gregory  to 
lead  him  to  the  episcopal  throne  of  St  Sophia,  how  many 
must  have  called  to  mind  the  great  Bishop  of  Caesarea ! 
The  Church  of  Antioch  paid  its  debt  to  Basil,  while 
making  a  magnificent  atonement  for  its  former  persecu- 


p.  433]         THE  SUCCESSION  AT  ANTIOCH  345 

tion  of  his  heart's  brother.     No  better  honour  could  have 
been  paid  to  his  illustrious  memory. 

Meletius  died  during  these  days  of  triumph.  The 
installation  of  the  Bishop  of  Constantinople  was  the  last 
ceremony  over  which  he  presided.  His  obsequies  were 
celebrated  with  the  greatest  pomp;  Gregory  of  Nyssa 
pronounced  the  funeral  oration. 

His  removal  from  the  scene  re-opened  a  question  of 
the  greatest  difficulty.  On  his  return  to  Antioch,  towards 
the  end  of  the  year  378,  Meletius  had  tried  to  come  to  an 
arrangement  with  Paulinus.  As  to  the  proceedings  or 
agreements  which  resulted  in  this  connection,  our  informa- 
tion is  derived  only  from  legends.^  Is  it  true  that 
Meletius  suggested  to  Paulinus  that  they  should  sit 
together,  with  the  Book  of  the  Gospels  between  them  ? 
Or  that,  at  any  rate,  it  was  agreed  that  the  first  of  them  to 
die  should  have  no  successor  ?  We  do  not  know.  As  to 
the  last  point,  the  pious  desires  of  sensible  persons  of 
every  opinion  must  have  agreed.  It  is  certain  that 
suggestions  to  that  effect  had  come  from  the  West, 
especially  from  the  circle  of  St  Ambrose.-  But  in  the 
West  they  only  concerned  themselves  with  theoretical 
right,  and  with  regard  to  details  they  accepted  the 
Alexandrian  views  of  the  situation.  On  the  spot,  it  was 
evident  that  the  community  attached  to  Paulinus  was  of 
little  importance,  that  Meletius  was  the  real  bishop,  and 
that  the  rival  Church  only  existed  by  the  favour  of 
Alexandria  and  of  the  West. 

The  fact  that  the  question  of  the  succession  to  Meletius 
was  raised  at  Constantinople,  and  during  a  great  council, com- 
posed almost  entirely  of  his  partisans,  was  not  calculated  to 

^  Socrates,  H.  E,  v.  5  {cf.  Sozomen,  H.  E.  vii.  3),  combines  together 
two  accounts — one  favourable  to  Paulinus,  the  other  in  which  his 
followers  are  treated  as  Luciferians.  Theodoret  i^H.  E.  v.  3)  gives  us 
no  firmer  ground.  It  is  not  even  certain  that  the  magister  militum 
Sapor,  who  was  instructed  to  conduct  the  restoration  of  the  churches 
of  Antioch  to  the  Catholics,  acted  in  the  time  of  Meletius,  rather  than 
in  that  of  Flavian. 

'■^  Letter  of  the  Council  of  Aquileia,  Ambrose,  Ep.  12,  5  ;  cf. 
13,2. 


346  GREGORY  OF  NAZIANZUS  [ch.  xii. 

advance  the  solution  which  was  desired,  not  only  by  the 
Western  Church  but  by  sensible  people  in  the  East.  The 
latter  found  a  spokesman  in  the  new  Bishop  of  Constanti- 
nople. Gregory  insisted  strongly  that  they  should  unite 
themselves  to  Paulinus.  He  was  not  listened  to.  The 
circumstances  of  the  Meletians,  the  new  favour  shown  to 
them,  the  successes  they  had  obtained,  all  served  to  enkindle 
them.  As  in  the  days  of  Eusebius  of  Nicomedia  and  the 
Council  of  Sardica,  they  vaunted  their  points  of  superiority 
as  contrasted  with  the  West.  "  Was  it  not  in  the  East," 
they  said,  "that  Christ  was  born?"  "Yes,"  replied 
Gregory ;  "  and  it  was  in  the  East  also  that  He  was 
slain."  His  efforts  were  in  vain  ;  the  bishops  decided  that 
Paulinus  should  not  be  recognized,  and  that  a  successor 
must  be  appointed  to  Meletius.  Gregory  was  much  dis- 
tressed. This  council,  over  which  he  had  presided  since 
the  death  of  Meletius,  was  beginning  to  irritate  him.  "  The 
youngest  of  them,"  he  said,^  "chattered  like  a  flock  of  jays, 
and  were  as  furious  as  a  swarm  of  wasps;  as  to  the  old 
men,  they  made  no  attempt  to  control  the  others." 

In  these  ungrateful  surroundings  his  beloved  solitude 
returned  to  his  mind,  with  memories  of  peace  and  religious 
meditation.  He  began  to  declare  that,  since  no  one 
would  listen  to  him,  it  was  better  for  him  to  go  away. 
But  this  was  not  the  wish  of  the  bishops ;  they  insisted 
strongly  upon  his  remaining  at  the  post  where  they  had 
placed  him.  In  the  meantime,  there  arrived  the  Bishop  of 
Thessalonica,  Acholius,  and  the  new  Pope  of  Alexandria, 
Timothy,  who  some  months  before  had  succeeded  his 
brother  Peter.  "  They  blew  with  the  rough  wind  of  the 
West,"  said  Gregory,^  meaning  that  they  favoured 
Paulinus.  From  that  point  of  view,  it  was  the  arrival  of 
a  reinforcement  for  the  Bishop  of  Constantinople.  But 
unfortunately  they  did  not  quite  like  Gregory,  or  rather 
they  could  not  resign  themselves  to  the  fact  that  the  see 
of  Constantinople  had  been  filled  up  by  the  successors  of 
Eusebius  of  Nicomedia  and  Leontius  of  Antioch.  They 
took  their  stand  on  ecclesiastical  rules,  raised  objections 
'  Carmen  de  Vita,  vv.  1680-1699.  -  Ihid,  verse  1802. 


p.  435-6]         RESIGNATION  OF  GREGORY  347 

as    to    Sasima    and    Nazianzus,    and    protested    against 
translations  from  one  bishopric  to  another. 

These  absurdities  exasperated  Gregory.  Enough  of 
these  triflings,  enough  of  these  hypocritical  disputes!  In 
a  final  address,  he  gave  an  account  of  his  spiritual  steward- 
ship, and  bade  a  most  touching  farewell  to  his  people,  to 
the  city  of  Constantine,  to  his  Church  the  Anastasis,  to  St 
Sophia,  to  the  Hoi)'  Apostles,  to  the  Council,  to  the  East, 
and  to  the  West — the  West,  for  which  and  through  which 
he  suffered  persecution.  Then  he  set  out  for  Nazianzus. 
Acholius  and  Timothy  had  done  a  fine  piece  of  work ! 

To  his  vacant  place  there  was  elected  a  man  of  the 
world,  a  certain  Nectarius,  a  Cilician  by  birth,  who  had 
been  a  government  official  at  Constantinople.  His  past 
had  not  been  distinguished  for  austerity ;  but  his  beard 
had  grown  white;  he  was  now  both  affable  and  grave. 
The  Bishop  of  Tarsus,  Diodore,  a  celebrated  ascetic, 
thought  that  he  had  a  sacerdotal  mien,  and  added  his 
name  to  the  list  of  candidates  presented  to  the  emperor. 
Theodosius  nominated  him.^  It  was  then  discovered  that  he 
had  not  yet  been  baptized.  It  was  the  case  of  St  Ambrose 
over  again,  minus  the  lofty  virtue  and  the  capabilities 
of  the  Bishop  of  Milan.  Perhaps  the  emperor  thought 
that  Nectarius  would  turn  out  a  second  Ambrose.  If  so, 
he  was  mistaken ;  but,  at  a  moment  when  the  Church  of 
Constantinople,  after  so  many  dissensions,  had  so  great 
a  need  of  rest,  Nectarius,  who  was  not  inclined  to 
fret  himself  too  much  about  delicate  shades  of  difference, 
was  perhaps,  in  spite  of  or  even  on  account  of  his 
deficiencies,  the  man  demanded  by  the  situation. 

Under  his  presidency,  evidently  an  honorary  one, 
the  council  concluded  its  labours.  These  may  even  have 
been  finished  earlier.  The  four  canons  in  which  they  are 
summed  up  show  no  signs  of  Alexandrian  influence.  We 
can  scarcely  believe  that  Timothy  had  had  a  share  in 
their  composition.- 

^  Sozomen,  H.  E.  vii.  8. 

^  Nevertheless,  his  name  appears,  with  that  of  a  Bishop  of  Oxyrhyn- 
chus,  in  the  list  of  signatories,  which  is  in  some  places  of  a  rather 
artificial  character. 


348  GREGORY  OF  NAZIANZUS  [ch.  xii. 

The  first  of  these  canons  proclaims  once  more  the  faith 
of  Nicaea,  and  anathematizes  all  heresies,  mentioning  by 
name  those  of  the  Eunomians  or  Anomoeans,  of  the  Arians 
or  Eudoxians,  of  the  Semi-Arians  or  Pneumatomachi,  and 
of  the  Sabellians,Marcellians,  Photinians,and  Apollinarians. 
The  second  canon  forbids  prelates  to  meddle  with  the 
affairs  of  other  civil  "  dioceses  "  than  their  own  ;  the  Bishop 
of  Alexandria  must  confine  his  anxious  care  to  Egypt ;  the 
religious  administration  of  the  East  concerns  only  the 
bishops  of  the  Orient,  who  shall  bear  in  mind  what  was 
decided  at  Nicaea  with  regard  to  the  prerogatives  of  the 
Church  of  Antioch ;  the  same  shall  hold  good  of  the 
dioceses  of  Asia,  Pontus,  and  Thrace,  As  for  Christian 
bodies  situated  beyond  the  frontiers  of  the  empire,  they 
shall  be  governed  according  to  established  custom.  By 
the  third  canon,  the  Bishop  of  Constantinople  finds  himself 
attributed  the  pre-eminence  of  honour  (to.  irpecr^eia  r^? 
Tifx^^)  after  the  Bishop  of  Rome  "  because  Constantinople 
is  a  new  Rome."  Finally,  the  last  canon  decides  the  case 
of  Maximus  the  Cynic :  he  is  not  recognized  as  a  bishop, 
and  all  his  acts,  especially  his  ordinations,  are  declared 
null  and  void.^ 

For  anyone  who  can  read  between  the  lines,  these 
decisions  of  the  council  represent  so  many  acts  of  hostility 
against  the  Church  of  Alexandria  and  its  claims  to 
hegemony.  It  is  orthodox  in  tone — there  is  no  doubt  of 
that,  and  it  condemns  all  the  heretical  movements  of  the 
time;  but  care  is  taken,  in  enumerating  them,  to  include 
among  them  the  Marcellians,  old  dependants  of  Alexandria, 
to  whom  it  had  still,  quite  recently,  extended  its  protection. 
If  so  much  stress  is  laid  on  each  bishop  occupying  himself 
only  with  his  own  affairs  and  remaining  within  the  "dio- 
cesan "  area  to  which  he  belongs,  it  is  from  a  desire  to  pre- 
vent the  interference  of  the  Egyptian  Pope  in  the  affairs 
of  Constantinople,  Antioch,  and  other  places.  If  the  pre- 
eminence of  Constantinople  is  asserted,  without  disputing 
that   of    Rome,   it    is   in    order   to   escape    from   that    of 

^  The  three  canons,  which  follow  these  in  collections  of  canons, 
represent  later  additions. 


p.  438]     THE  CANONS  OF  CONSTANTINOPLE        349 

Alexandria.  It  might  have  seemed  perhaps  of  little  use 
to  allude  to  the  blundering  affair  of  Maximus  ;  but,  as  the 
recollection  of  it  was  disagreeable  to  the  Alexandrians,  the 
council  did  not  fail  to  bring  it  to  life  again. 

In  fact,  old  quarrels  were  remembered  too  well. 
Gregory  had  been  quite  right  to  flee  ;  it  was  not  a  time 
for  peaceful  souls.  If  the  members  of  the  council  had 
been  wiser,  they  might  have  asked  themselves  from  which 
quarter — Alexandria  or  the  East — interferences  with  the 
affairs  of  others  had  been  more  frequent  and  more 
harmful.  Was  it  not  an  Egyptian  affair,  that  matter  of 
Arius?  Who  had  added  venom  to  it?  Eusebius  of 
Nicomedia,  and  his  accomplices  in  Bithynia  and  Syria. 
Were  they  Egyptian  bishops  who  had  led  the  chorus  at 
the  Council  of  Tyre  ?  Whence  came  the  rivals  of 
Athanasius,  men  like  Gregory  and  George?  In  this 
outbreak  of  passion  against  him,  had  Athanasius  ever 
given  a  pretext  by  entrenching  upon  the  rights  of  others  ? 
They  mistrusted  the  superior  power  of  Alexandria.  Had 
they  not  used  and  abused  that  of  Antioch  ? 

But  all  this  was  forgotten  under  the  influence  of 
present  resentment.  They  even  sacrificed  the  ancient 
prestige  of  Antioch.  The  traditional  metropolis  of  the 
East,  the  second  cradle  of  Christianity,  weakened  at  that 
moment  by  schism,  did  not  seem  to  be  a  sufficient  bulwark 
against  the  Alexandrian  peril.  As  a  rallying  centre,  they 
preferred  to  it  Constantinople,  the  city  of  Constantine,  the 
new  Rome.  Constantius,  Julian,  and  Valens  had  usually 
resided  at  Antioch  :  military  exigencies  called  them  on 
the  side  of  the  Persian  frontier.  But  now  the  Danube 
was  a  greater  cause  for  anxiety  than  the  Euphrates ;  and 
it  was  easy  to  foresee  the  abandonment  of  Antioch  for 
Constantinople.  The  bishop  of  this  great  city  was  called 
upon  to  profit,  so  far  as  his  influence  was  concerned,  by 
the  vicinity  of  the  imperial  court  and  the  chief  seat  of 
government.  From  this  point  of  view,  he  inherited  the 
position  of  the  Bishop  of  Antioch.  Never  did  he  forget  this 
origin.  The  ecclesiastical  history  of  the  East  was  long  to 
resound  with  his  rivalry  with  his  colleague  of  Alexandria. 


350  GREGORY  OF  NAZIANZUS  [gh.  xii. 

Besides  these  practical  decisions,  tlie  bishops  drew  up 
a  doctrinal  statement,  which  we  no  longer  possess.  It  no 
doubt  took  the  form  of  a  letter  addressed  either  to  the 
whole  episcopal  body,  or  to  certain  churches.^ 

While  the  bishops  were  on  their  way  home,  Theodosius 
published,  on  July  30,  381,  a  law  ordering  the  churches  to 
be  restored  everywhere  to  the  orthodox  party,  and,  that 
there  might  be  no  occasions  for  doubt,  he  specified,  in 
each  civil  "diocese,"  those  prelates  with  whom  communion 
would  be  a  guarantee  of  orthodoxy  for  the  guidance 
of  his  officials.  For  Thrace,  besides  Nectarius  of 
Constantinople,  there  were  the  Bishops  of  Scythia 
and  Marcianopolis  ;  for  Egypt,  Timothy ;  for  Pontus, 
Helladius  of  Csesarea,  Otreius  of  Melitene,  and  Gregory 
of  Nyssa ;  for  Asia,  Amphilochius  of  Iconium  and 
Optimus  of  Antioch  in  Pisidia ;  for  the  Orient,  Pelagius 
of  Laodicea,  and  Diodore  of  Tarsus.  The  capital  cities  of 
the  dioceses  of  Asia  and  the  Orient — Ephesus  and  Antioch 
— had  no  bishop,  or  rather  the  Bishop  of  Ephesus  was  a 
"  Macedonian,"  and  in  Antioch  they  were  still  waiting  for 
a  successor  to  Meletius.  One  was  elected  shortly  after- 
wards :  this  was  Flavian,  the  former  companion  in 
conflict  of  Diodore,  who  himself  was  now  Bishop  of 
Tarsus.  Flavian  had  every  possible  claim  and  every 
necessary  quality.  But  unfortunately  his  election  took 
place  under  such  conditions  that  it  was  not  possible  for 
either  Rome  or  Alexandria  to  accept  him. 

However,  the  wind  from  the  West,  the  roughness  of 
which  was  so  unpleasant  to  the  Easterns,  began  to  blow 
once    more.     The    Emperor  Theodosius  received  letters  - 

'  The  synodal  letter  of  382,  which  will  be  quoted  presently,  is  the 
only  docuinent  which  mentions  this  statement  (ro/xos).  It  pre- 
supposes, as  it  seems  to  me,  that  Pope  Damasus  had  the  text  of  it. 
There  is  certainly  no  connection  between  this  document,  which 
contained  anathemas  against  the  new  doctrines  (those  of  the 
Anomoeans,  Macedonians,  and  ApoUinarians),  and  the  creed  called 
Niceno-Constantinopolitan,  which  is  now  sung  in  the  Mass.  The 
latter  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  council  of  381.  Upon  this  often 
debated  question,  see  the  article  of  Harnack,  in  Hauck's  Eiicyclopiidie, 
vol.  xi.,  pp.  12-28.  -  Ambrose,  Ep.  12,  Quamlibet. 


p.  441]  COUNCIL  OF  AQUILEIA  351 

from  a  council  held  at  Aquileia  almost  at  the  same  time  as 
that  of  Constantinople.  This  council  had  been  attended 
by  a  certain  number  of  bishops  from  North  Italy,  amongst 
others  Valerian  of  Aquileia  and  Ambrose  of  Milan,  with 
delegates  from  the  episcopate  of  the  Gauls  and  from  that 
of  Africa.  They  thanked  the  Eastern  emperor  for  having 
restored  the  churches  to  the  Catholics,  but  they  deplored 
the  fact  that  there  was  still  no  peace  amongst  the  latter. 
Timothy  of  Alexandria  and  Paulinus  of  Antioch,  who 
had  always  been  in  communion  with  the  orthodox  party, 
had  cause  of  complaint  against  those  "  whose  faith  had,  in 
the  past,  shown  itself  unstable."^  It  was  desirable  that 
this  matter  should  be  decided  by  a  great  council  :  and  it 
might  be  held  in  Alexandria  itself 

Shortly  afterwards,  the  wretched  Maximus  arrived  at 
Aquileia,  where  the  council  was  still  assembled  - ;  he 
succeeded  in  insinuating  himself  into  the  good  graces  of 
Ambrose,  showed  him  letters  from  Peter  of  Alexandria, 
and  told  him  in  his  own  way  the  story  of  his  ordination. 
The  Bishop  of  Milan  did  not  wait  for  information  from 
Rome:  he  believed  what  he  was  told,  and  new  letters^ 
from  the  bishops  of  Italy  conveyed  to  Constantinople  a 
protest  in  favour  of  this  strange  client,  whose  rights,  in 
the  eyes  of  Ambrose,  exceeded  those  of  Gregory  of 
Nazianzus.  According  to  Ambrose,  the  council  assembled 
in  the  capital  of  the  Eastern  empire  ought  at  least  to  have 
suspended  its  judgment  until  the  great  council,  demanded 
in  the  previous  letter.  No  attention  was  paid  to  him  ; 
perhaps  his  protest  arrived  too  late.  He  soon  heard 
that  Maximus  had  been  deposed,  Gregory  installed,  and 
even  provided  with  a  successor  in  the  person  of  Nectarius. 
In  like  manner  at  Antioch  Meletius  had  been  replaced, 
in  spite  of  all  agreements  or  suggestions  in  a  contrary 
sense.     For  the  third    time,  Ambrose  addressed  himself 

1  "  Quorum  fides  superioribus  temporibus  haesitabat." 

-  This    seems   implied    by   the   letter,    No.    13,    of  St   Ambrose, 

{Sanctum,  c.  4),  the  text  of  which  is  corrupt. 

3  A  lost  letter,  mentioned  in  the  following  one,  Ep.   13,  Sanctum 

animum. 


352  GREGORY  OF  NAZIANZUS  [ch.  xri. 

to  Theodosius,  in  his  own  name  and  in  the  name  of  the 
bishops  of  the  "diocese"  of  Italy/  by  the  advice,  as  he 
said,  of  the  Emperor  Gratian.  He  declared  that  such 
affairs  ought  not  to  be  decided  apart  from  the  Western 
episcopate,  which  had  a  right  to  know  with  whom  it 
ought  to  be  on  terms  of  communion. 

These  protests,  probably  supported  by  Pope  Damasus 
and  by  the  Emperor  Gratian,  induced  -  Theodosius  to 
accept  the  idea  of  a  joint  council,  in  which  should  be 
united  the  two  episcopates  of  the  East  and  the  West. 
He  invited  the  Eastern  episcopate  to  send  delegates  to 
Constantinople,  with  that  intention  ;  and  it  was  decided 
that  the  meeting  should  be  held  in  Rome.  . 

We  have  but  little  information  with  regard  to  this 
council.  PauHnus  of  Antioch  was  present,  accompanied 
by  Epiphanius,  the  metropolitan  of  the  island  of  Cyprus. 
Acholius  of  Thessalonica  also  went  to  it.  We  may 
conclude  that  the  Bishop  of  Alexandria  was,  at  least, 
represented.  As  to  the  "  Easterns,"  properly  so  called, 
the  people  who  had  held  a  council  the  year  before  at 
Constantinople,  they  avoided  it,  as  their  spiritual  ancestors 
had  done  at  Sardica  forty  years  before.  However,  we 
must  acknowledge  that  they  did  so  more  formally. 
Three  of  them  were  sent  to  Rome,  bearing  a  letter  in 
mingled  tones,  the  text  of  which  we  still  possess.^  It 
opens  with  a  description  of  the  melancholy  state  to  which 
the  religious  policy  of  Valens  had  reduced  the  Eastern 
Church  ;  then  comes  a  delicate  reminder  that  the  Westerns 
had  troubled  themselves  little  about  their  unfortunate 
brethren;  then  they  are  thanked  for  the  interest  which, 
in   happier   days,   they    are    beginning    to   evince.     The 

'  Ep.  13,  Sanctum  animum.  By  its  title  and  its  text,  this  letter 
betrays  a  date  subsequent  to  the  Council  of  Aquileia.  The  group  of 
bishops  in  whose  name  Ambrose  writes  is  that  of  the  bishops  of  the 
"diocese"  of  Italy,  which  we  must  carefully  distinguish  from  the 
group  of  bishops  of  the  suburbicarian  diocese,  who  depended  directly 
upon  the  Pope,  and  had  nothing  to  do  with  the  Bishop  of  Milan. 

^  He  seems  to  have  made  some  objections  ;  Letter  14  of  St 
Ambrose,  Fidei  tuae,  has  preserved  a  trace  of  this. 

3  Theodoret,  H.  E.  v.  9. 


p.  443-4]  THE  EAST  AND  THE  ROMAN  COUNCIL  353 

Eastern  delegates  would  have  had  much  pleasure  in 
attending  the  Council  of  Rome ;  but  they  had  come  to 
Constantinople  without  suspecting  that  it  was  a  question 
of  so  long  a  journey,  for  which  they  had  no  instructions 
from  their  colleagues.  It  was  now  too  late  to  consult 
them.  "  These  reasons,  and  many  others,  prevent  us  from 
coming  to  you  in  a  greater  number.  Nevertheless,  to 
improve  the  position,  and  to  show  our  affection  for  you, 
we  have  entreated  our  brothers  in  the  episcopate,  Cyriacus 
Eusebius,  and  Priscian,  to  be  so  good  as  to  undertake 
this  journey.  Through  them,  we  manifest  to  you  our 
desires  as  being  peaceable  and  in  the  direction  of  unity ,i 
as  well  as  our  zeal  for  the  true  faith."  At  this  point 
there  was  set  out  the  faith  of  the  Eastern  Church,  in 
conformity  with  the  Creed  of  Nicaea,  the  Trinity  con- 
substantial  with  three  hypostases,  the  Incarnation  of  the 
Word  perfect  with  a  perfect  humanity.  For  details,  the 
Westerns  were  referred  to  the  confession  (tojulo^)  of 
Antioch,-  and  to  that  of  the  "  CEcumenical "  Council, 
held  the  year  before  at  Constantinople.  As  to  questions 
relating  to  individuals,  they  had  been  decided  according 
to  traditional  rules  and  the  decree  of  Nicaea,  which 
committed  the  care  of  them  to  the  bishops  of  the  different 
provinces.  It  was  in  this  way  that  Nectarius  had  been 
established  at  Constantinople,  Flavian  at  Antioch,  and 
that  Cyril  had  been  recognized  at  Jerusalem.  All  this 
had  been  done  in  a  regular  manner,  and  the  Western 
Church  had  only  to  rejoice  thereat. 

It  came  to  this,  that  the  Easterns,  while  showing  that 
no  difference  with  regard  to  the  faith  any  longer  divided 
them  from  the  Westerns,  refused  the  latter  any  right  to 
interfere  in  their  internal  affairs.  And  it  is  true  that  the 
circumstances  were  calculated  to  justify  in  their  eyes  such  an 
attitude.  The  peace  of  the  East  could  not  be  indefinitely 
compromised  for  the  sake  of  Paulinus  and  his  Little  Church. 
They  had  been  wrong  perhaps  not  to  win  over  this  old 
irreconcilable  by  giving  him  the  succession  to  Meletius ; 

^  Trji'  7)fi€Tipav  irpoaipecriv  (lpr)ViKT]v  o!><Tav  Kal  ckSttov  ivuffews  ^x°'-''^^^- 
■■  That  of  379  ;  su^ra,  p.  336. 

n  z 


354  GREGORY  OF  NAZIANZUS  [ch.  xti. 

but  was  it  possible  to  forget  that,  if  he  had  become  so 
troublesome,  it  was  the  fault  of  the  Westerns  who  had 
consecrated  and  supported  him  ?  It  was  for  them  to  get 
rid  of  him  and  to  rid  others  of  him.  It  would,  besides, 
have  been  very  dangerous  to  go  and  plead  against 
Paulinus  before  those  who  were  defending  him  with  a  firm 
determination  not  to  reverse  their  own  action.  Were 
they,  in  a  matter  which  concerned  Constantinople,  to 
face  the  decision  of  Ambrose,  who,  only  the  year  before, 
had  allowed  himself  to  be  deceived  by  that  imposter  of 
a  Maximus,  and  who  had  not  yet  dreamed  of  abandoning 
him  ?  No,  no.  People  capable  of  supporting  Paulinus 
against  Meletius,  Maximus  the  Cynic  against  Gregory 
of  Nazianzus  ;  people  whose  dependents  had  been 
Marcellus,  Eustathius,  Apollinaris,^  and  Vitalis  —  could 
not  really  be  conversant  with  Eastern  affairs  and  persons. 
The  best  thing  to  do  was  to  arrange  matters  among 
themselves,  and  to  allow  Time,  that  wise  physician,  to 
heal  the  wounds  which  here  and  there  were  still  bleeding. 
So  thought  the  Easterns.  Hence,  the  Council  of 
Rome,  being  held  without  them,  could  have  no  effect. 
Yet  it  does  not  appear  that  this  assembly  supported  the 
demands  of  Ambrose  in  favour  of  Maximus  the  Cynic. 
We  must  conclude  that  the  Bishop  of  Milan,  when  better 
informed,  had  abandoned  them  himself.  Theodosius 
insisted  at  this  time,  I  think,  that  Nectarius  should  be 
recognized  at  Rome.  High  officials  from  his  court, 
supported  by  the  delegates  from  the  Eastern  episcopate, 
took  the  necessary  steps  with  the  Pope,  and  induced  him 
to  send  letters  of  communion  to  Constantinople.^  As  for 
the  business  at  Antioch,  things  remained  as  they  were. 

1  In   his    letter   Fidei  tiiae   {Ep.    14),   Ambrose   still   claims   for 
Apollinaris  judgment  after  a  full  hearing  of  the  case. 

2  A  fact  recalled  by  Pope  Boniface,  in  a  letter  belonging  to  the 
year  422  (Jafife,  365). 


CHAPTER   XIII 

POPE   DAMASUS 

The  West  and  the  Roman  Church  before  the  Emperor  Constantius. 
Exile  of  bishops.  Intrusion  of  Felix.  The  Pontifical  election 
of  366  :  Damasus  and  Ursinus.  Riots  in  Rome.  Rancour  of 
Ursinus  against  Damasus.  The  sects  at  Rome.  Damasus  and 
the  secular  arm.  Councils  against  the  Arians.  Ambrose,  Bishop 
of  Milan.  Fresh  intrigues  against  Damasus ;  Isaac  institutes 
a  criminal  prosecution  against  him,  Roman  Council  of  378. 
Gratian's  Rescript  to  Aquilinus.  Council  of  Aquileia.  Roman 
Council  of  382.  Jerome  and  his  early  career  :  his  sojourn  in 
the  Syrian  desert.  His  relations  with  Pope  Damasus.  His 
success  in  Rome  :  Paula  and  Marcella.  The  inscriptions  of 
Damasus  and  the  cult  of  the  martyrs.  Siricius  succeeds  Damasus. 
Departure  of  Jerome  for  Palestine. 

With  the  exception  of  Africa,  where  irreligious  discord 
still  raged,  peace  reigned  in  the  Churches  of  the  Latin  West 
down  to  the  time  when  the  Emperor  Constantius  trans- 
ferred to  it  the  quarrels  of  the  East.  It  had  previously 
been  quietly  occupied  in  binding  up  the  wounds  made 
by  persecution,  in  restoring  the  sacred  edifices,  enlarging 
them  to  contain  the  very  numerous  recruits  whom 
Christianity  was  receiving ;  and  finally,  in  completing 
what  was  lacking  in  organization.  New  bishoprics  were 
being  founded  almost  everywhere  in  proportion  as  the 
bodies  of  Christians  increased  in  importance.  Councils 
were  undoubtedly  held,  though  we  only  hear  of  those 
convoked  on  account  of  the  Donatists  and  the  Arians. 
The  Council  of  x^rles,  in  314,  was  of  special  importance. 
It  was  a  kind  of  Oecumenical  Council,  as  was  speedily  said, 
in  which  the  bishops  assembled  from  all  parts  of 
Constantine's  empire.  The  Pope  was  not  present ;  he 
sent  in  his  stead  two  Roman  priests.  This  was  the 
355 


356  POPE  DAMASUS  [ch.  xiii. 

inauguration  of  a  practice  which  was  long  observed. 
Very  few  were  the  Popes  who  quitted  Rome,  especially 
for  ecclesiastical  affairs  :  maior  a  longinqiio  reverentia. 

At  the  time  of  the  Council  of  Aries,  Pope  Miltiades  ^ 
had  just  been  succeeded  by  Silvester.  The  latter  held 
the  see  almost  to  the  end  of  the  reign  of  Constantine, 
He  appears  as  an  important  figure  in  legends,  but  his 
real  history  is  unknown.  All  that  we  know  of  him 
is  that  he  was  accused  by  "sacrilegious  persons,"  and 
that  the  emperor  removed  the  case  to  his  own  personal 
tribunal.^  Julius,  who  replaced  him  after  the  short 
episcopate  of  Mark,  would  be  not  less  forgotten  if  he 
had  not  been  mixed  up  with  Eastern  affairs.  The 
internal  history  of  the  Roman  Church  during  this  first 
half  of  the  4th  century  seems  to  have  run  its  course 
without  incident.  The  number  of  the  Christians  increased 
to  an  enormous  extent.  The  ancient  places  of  worship, 
hastily  restored  when  the  persecution  was  over,  received 
constant  additions  by  the  erection  of  new  churches.^ 
Search  was  made  in  the  cemeteries  of  the  suburbs  for  the 
tombs  of  the  martyrs ;  the  faithful  delighted  to  adorn 
them ;  often,  they  even  erected  over  them  chapels  of 
more  or  less  magnificence.  In  these  were  celebrated 
their  anniversary  feasts,  of  which  a  calendar  was  soon 
drawn  up."*     As  the  number  of  believers  increased,  there 

1  Miltiades,  July  2,  3ii-January  11,  314;  Silvester,  January  31, 
314-Deceniber  31,  335;  Mark,  336  (January  18-October  7);  Julius, 
February  6,  337-April  12,  352. 

-  Letter  of  the  Roman  Council  of  378  to  the  Emperors  Gratian 
and  Valentinian  II.  It  undoubtedly  refers  to  some  criminal  process 
instigated  by  the  Donatists.  It  was  a  very  ordinary  move  on  the  part 
of  persons  who  disagreed  with  their  bishops  on  religious  grounds,  to  try 
to  bring  obloquy  upon  them  by  dragging  them  before  secular  tribunals. 

3  Titulus  Equitii  (S.  Martino  ai  Monti),  under  Silvester  ;  titulus 
Marci{S.  Marco)  under  Mark  ;  titulus  Julii  {?>.  Maria  in  Trastevere), 
with  another  basilica  (SS.  Apostoli)  near  the  Forum  of  Trajan,  under 
Julius ;  basilica  Liberiana  (S.  Maria  Maggiore),  under  Liberius ; 
titulus  Damasi  (S.  Lorenzo  in  Damaso)  under  Damasus. 

*  The  Philocalian  "  Ferial"  belongs  to  the  year  336  ;  it  is  probable 
that  the  one  which  is  included  in  the  compilation  of  the  Hieronymian 
martyrology  went  back  still  earlier. 


p.  449]    THE  ROMAN  CHURCH  AND  DOCTRINE    357 

naturally  resulted  also  a  great  development  in  religious 
observances  and  in  the  number  of  ecclesiastics. 

St  Athanasius,  who  came  to  Rome  in  339,  made  a 
great  sensation  in  the  best  society.  He  was  in  a  position 
to  relate  to  the  Roman  ladies  the  extraordinary  life  of 
the  hermits  Antony  and  Pacomius  and  their  followers.^ 
So  was  sown  the  first  seed  of  many  aristocratic  vocations 
which  soon  bore  fruit. 

The  Roman  Church  had  received  in  the  days  of 
Silvester,  official  intimation  of  the  condemnation  of 
Arius  by  the  Bishop  of  Alexandria.  Being  invited 
to  the  Council  of  Nicaea,  the  Pope  had  sent  there,  as  in 
the  case  of  the  Council  of  Aries,  two  priests  to  represent 
him.  With  regard  to  doctrinal  questions,  the  Roman 
Church  was  at  peace.  The  days  of  Hippolytus,  Callistus, 
and  Tertullian  were  now  far  away.  In  the  matter  of 
formulas,  when  any  need  was  felt  for  making  use  of  them, 
there  was  that  of  Tertullian  and  of  Novatian,  "  One  Sub- 
stance, Three  Persons,"  which  seemed  sufficient  for  every 
need.  Formerly,  when  Greek  was  spoken,  the  term 
homooiisios  had  been  made  use  of;  it  was  now  translated 
by  co7isubsiantialis,  thus  identifying  the  two  words  oJcr/a 
and  viT6(jTa(Ti<i.  This  was  the  terminology  which  Silvester's 
legates  recommended  to  the  Council  of  Nicaea,  and  of 
which  they  secured  the  adoption. 

When,  in  340,  the  Roman  Council,  presided  over  by 
Pope  Julius,  saw  the  appearance  before  it,  in  one  of  the 
basilicas  of  the  city,  of  the  Bishops  of  Alexandria,  Ancyra, 
and  Gaza,  the  question  of  dogma  raised  no  difficulty. 
Of  the  three  appellants,  Marcellus  of  Ancyra  was  the 
only  one  who  had  been  condemned  in  the  East  for  his 
doctrine.     And    he,   also,  upheld  the  Unity  of  Substance 

'  It  was  said  afterwards  that  he  brought  some  of  these  ascetics 
to  Rome.  Palladius  {Historia  Lausiaca,  i.)  mentions  Isidore,  the 
hospitaller  of  Alexandria,  and  Socrates  {H.  E.  iv.  23)  mentions 
Ammonius  Parotes.  But,  even  from  the  account  of  Palladius,  Isidore 
could  only  have  been  twenty-one  years  of  age  at  the  time  of  the 
journey  of  Athanasius  ;  and  Ammonius,  who  died  in  403,  could  not 
have  been  much  older. 


358  POPE  DAMASUS  [ch.  xiii. 

and  the  Trinity  of  Persons;  the  Romans  had  no  difficulty 
about  coming  to  an  understanding  with  him. 

All  this  produced  no  effect  on  Roman,  we  may  almost 
say  on  Latin,  opinion,  unless  it  were  in  producing  the 
impression  that  the  Church  in  the  Empire  of  Constantius, 
just  as  in  Africa,  was  troubled  by  profound  dissensions. 
And  it  was  impossible  to  devote  an  unlimited  amount 
of  attention  to  these  distant  troubles.  However,  certain 
differences  of  opinion  had  been  brought  officially  before 
the  Roman  Church :  the  bishops  of  the  West  began  to 
realize  that  it  would  be  necessary  for  them  to  concern  them- 
selves with  these  Eastern  affairs.  A  certain  number  of 
them  took  part  in  the  Council  of  Sardica,  the  result  of 
which,  as  we  have  previously  seen,  did  not  answer  to 
the  hopes  of  those  who  had  called  it  together.  Being 
angry  with  the  defenders  of  Athanasius,  the  Easterns 
pronounced  sentences  of  deposition  against  Pope  Julius, 
against  Maximin,  Bishop  of  Treves,  Hosius  of  Cordova, 
and  several  others.  It  is  true  that  these  sentences  had 
no  effect ;  neither  they  nor  the  counter  ones  pronounced 
from  the  side  of  the  Latins  prevented  the  resumption 
of  negotiations,  in  the  following  year,  between  the  two 
episcopates.  The  bishops  went  and  came  from  Milan 
to  Antioch,  and  from  Antioch  to  Milan.  These  negotia- 
tions, however,  were  the  business  of  the  leaders ;  the 
episcopate  as  a  body  was  but  scantily  concerned  in  them  ; 
and  the  general  mass  of  the  faithful  and  of  the  clergy  took 
absolutely  no  interest  in  them. 

The  position  was  no  longer  the  same  from  the  begin- 
ning of  353  when  the  Emperor  Constantius,  master  of 
both  halves  of  the  empire,  sought  to  engage  the  Western 
episcopate  in  the  crusade  then  going  on  in  the  East 
against  Athanasius  and  against  the  Creed  of  Nicaea. 
He  succeeded,  but  not  without  exciting  opposition  in 
some  cases  which  was  severely  put  down.  Ever  since 
the  Great  Persecution,  people  had  been  accustomed  to 
see  the  bishops  govern  their  churches  in  peace.  The 
list  of  exiles  and  of  confessors  was  unrolled  once  more 
under    the    government    of    Constantine's    son.     Several 


p.  451-2]     TROUBLES  UNDER  CONSTANTIUS         359 

churches  found  themselves  deprived  of  their  heads ;  for 
instance — in  Gaul,  those  of  Treves,  Poitiers,  and  Toulouse  ; 
in  Sardinia,  that  of  Cagliari ;  in  Italy,  those  of  Milan  and 
VercellcB.  The  exiles  were  sometimes  replaced  by  persons 
who  came  from  Cappadocia  or  some  other  Eastern  country 
who  could  scarcely  speak  Latin.  Auxentius  of  Milan  was 
the  most  celebrated  of  these  immigrants.  We  must  also 
mention  Epictetus.whowas  installed  at  Centumcellae(Civita- 
Vecchia),  and  who  was  a  very  undesirable  character. 

But  the  place  where  the  trouble  was  most  grievous  was 
Rome.  At  the  moment  when  Constantius  entered  Italy, 
during  the  summer  of  352,  Pope  Julius  had  just  been 
succeeded  by  Liberius  (May  17).  We  have  already  seen 
what  his  attitude  was  in  this  melancholy  business,  how  he 
was  banished  from  Rome,  and  exiled  to  the  remote  parts 
of  Thrace. 

The  violence  shown  to  him  was  much  resented  by  the 
Christian  populace.  At  first,  the  clergy  made  great 
demonstrations  of  fidelity.  In  a  solemn  assembly,  priests, 
deacons,  and  other  clerics  took  an  oath  in  the  presence  of 
the  faithful  that,  so  long  as  Liberius  lived,  they  would  accept 
no  other  bishop.^  Among  the  most  determined  figured 
the  archdeacon  Felix,  and  the  deacon  Damasus,  the  latter 
of  whom  had  set  out  with  Liberius,  but  had  returned 
shortly  after.  This  fiery  zeal  soon  died  out.  The  Court 
resolved  to  appoint  a  successor  to  Liberius.  This  time  it 
was  not  considered  wise  to  have  recourse  to  the  Cappa- 
docian  band :  the  new  Bishop  of  Rome  was  chosen  from 
the  ranks  of  the  Roman  clergy.  The  archdeacon  Felix 
was  summoned  to  Milan  and,  notwithstanding  his  oath, 
accepted  the  succession  to  the  exile.  Acacius  of  Caesarea 
superintended  the  whole  affair  2;  Epictetus  was  also  mixed 
up  in  it.^  They  no  doubt  figured  at  the  ordination 
ceremony,  performed,  says  Athanasius,  by  three  spies  ^  in 

'  Upon  this,  see  Collectio  Avellana,  n.  i  :  Quae  gesta  sunt  inter 
Liberium  et  Felicem  episcopos.  The  oath  is  attested  also  by  St 
Jerome,  in  his  Chronicle^  a.  Abr.  2365. 

"  Jerome,  De.  viris,  98.  •'  Athan.  Hist.  Ar.  73. 

^  KardcTKOTrot,  a  play  upon  words,  in  contradiction  to  fTriV^oTroi. 


360  POPE  DAMASUS  [ch.  xiii. 

the  palace,  in  the  presence  of  three  eunuchs,  who  filled  the 
part  of  the  Christian  people.  On  his  return  to  Rome, 
Felix  was  welcomed  by  the  majority  of  the  clergy  ;  but 
the  people  would  not  hear  of  him,  and  held  aloof,  seizing 
every  opportunity  of  expressing  their  displeasure  and 
demanding  the  return  of  Liberius.  In  May  357, 
Constantius  visited  Rome.  Then  their  efforts  increased. 
Christian  matrons  presented  themselves  at  the  palace  i; 
and  in  the  circus  the  crowd  demanded  their  bishop. 
"You  shall  have  him,"  replied  the  emperor;  "and  he 
will  return  to  you  better  than  he  left  you."  He  knew 
already  that  Liberius  had  not  held  out,  and  that  the 
Bishops  of  Aquileia  and  Berea  had  persuaded  him  to  for- 
sake Athanasius  and  accept  communion  with  the  Easterns. 
But  this  proceeding  on  the  part  of  Liberius  put  the 
government  in  a  position  of  very  great  embarrassment. 
He  might  now  be  reinstated  at  Rome,  since  he  had  done 
what  he  was  asked  to  do.  But  what  was  to  be  done  with 
Felix  ?  2  After  long  hesitation,  the  Court  at  last  decided 
to  entrust  the  government  of  the  Roman  Church  to  two 
bishops  at  the  same  time.  I  have  said  before  that  this 
scheme  was  refused  by  the  people  who,  now  that  Liberius 
was  restored  to  them,  made  it  their  own  business  to  get 
rid  of  his  rival.  This  solution,  however,  was  not 
accomplished  without  scenes  of  brawling.^  Somewhat 
confused  recollections*  represent  Liberius  to  us  as  installed 
on  the  Via  Nomentana  near  Sta  Agnese,  and  Felix  as 
taking  refuge  on  an  estate  which  belonged  to  him,  on 
the  road  to  Portus.  It  is  certain  that  the  former  Pope 
gained  the  victory,  that  the  faithful  flocked  to  his  presence, 
and  arranged  for  him  a  triumphal  entry.^     Shortly  after- 

1  Theodore t,  H.  E.  ii.  14. 

-  A  law  as  to  the  immunities  of  the  inferior  clergy  {Cod.  Theod.  xvi. 
2,  14)  was  addressed  to  him.  The  date  which  it  bears  in  the 
Theodosian  Code  (December  6,  357)  is  open  to  challenge. 

^  Regrettable  incidents,  which  occurred  on  this  account,  were 
referred  to,  in  360,  in  the  condemnation  of  Basil  of  Ancyra  (Sozomen, 
H.  E.  iv.  24). 

■*  Liber  Ponttficalis,  Lives  of  Liberius  and  of  Felix  IL 

=  Jerome,  Chron.  a.  Abr.  2365  ;  Coll.  Avell.,  loc.  cit. 


p.  454]  LIBERIUS  AND  FELIX  361 

wards,  Felix  returned  to  contest  the  position,  and  tried  to 
regain  possession  of  the  basilica  of  Julius,  in  Trastevere, 
with  the  assistance  of  the  clergy  of  his  party.  But  the 
faithful,  including  both  the  aristocracy  and  the  common 
people,  interfered  a  second  time,  and  the  intruder,  being 
decisively  repulsed,  made  up  his  mind  to  take  no  further 
steps.^ 

One  serious  indication  of  this  troubled  state  of  things 
was  that  the  Roman  Church  was  not  represented  at  the 
Council  of  Ariminum.  This  was  a  piece  of  good  fortune 
for  it,  since  the  result  was  that,  when  the  council  broke  up, 
it  had  had  no  share  in  the  "  falling-away  "  of  that  assembly. 
The  year  360  passed  by  without  Liberius  having  recognized 
its  decrees,  against  which  protests  were  already  being 
uttered  in  Gaul.  In  the  spring  of  361  the  officials  of  Con- 
stantius  disappeared :  the  reign  of  Julian  was  beginning. 
The  West  was  scarcely  aware  of  it.  There,  Christians  were 
accustomed  to  live  with  pagans,  who  were  still  numerous 
and  influential  and  were  largely  represented  in  govern- 
ment offices  and  in  the  ranks  of  the  aristocracy.  Besides, 
the  Christians  seldom  allowed  themselves  to  be  carried  away 
into  those  excesses  of  zeal  which,  in  Julian's  reign,  served 
as  a  pretext  for  so  many  reactions.  Liberty  was  restored 
completely  under  Jovian  and  Valentinian.  On  December 
22,  365,  Felix  died.  His  party  was  wise  enough  not  to 
give  him  a  successor,  and  Liberius  to  show  the  greatest 
indulgence  towards  those  persons  who  had  taken  his  rival 
as  their  leader.  The  unity  of  the  clergy  was  re-established. 
Yet  bitter  memories  remained  :  everyone  had  not 
approved  of  the  merciful  conduct  of  Liberius ;  Liberians 
and  Felicians  continued  to  look  at  each  other  askance. 
The  death  of  Liberius  (September  24,  366),  following 
almost    immediately    after    that    of    Felix,    opened    the 

^  We  know  that  legend  gave  Felix  a  striking  revenge,  and  that  it  even 
sacrificed  to  him  the  memory  of  Liberius.  Upon  this,  see  my  edition 
of  the  Liber  Poniijicalis,  vol.  i.,  p.  cxx.  ff.  In  this  pontifical  chronicle 
Felix  figures,  as  the  result,  I  think,  of  a  later  editing,  in  the  number 
of  the  Popes.  He  is  also  included  in  the  same  way  in  other 
catalogues  of  rather  earlier  date.  Of  all  the  anti-popes  of  antiquity, 
Felix  is  the  only  one  to  be  so  favoured. 


362  POPE  DAMASUS  [cii.  xiii. 

conflict  between  the  two  currents  of  opinion.  Scarcely 
was  the  Pope  buried  than  two  parties  formed  themselves. 
The  one  established  itself  at  the  end  of  the  Campus 
Martius,  in  the  basilica  of  Lucina  (S.  Lorenzo  in  Lucina)  ; 
the  other  in  the  basilica  of  Julius  (S.  Maria)  in  Trastevere. 
The  latter  were  the  irreconcilables,  the  adversaries  of  the 
pacific  policy  of  the  dead  Pope.  They  included  only 
seven  priests  and  three  deacons ;  and  one  of  the  latter, 
Ursinus,  was  acclaimed  as  bishop  and  ordained  on  the 
spot  by  the  Bishop  of  Tibur.  It  was  on  Sunday,  and  the 
custom  already  existed  of  choosing  that  day  for  episcopal 
ordinations.  In  the  Church  of  Lucina,  the  deacon 
Damasus,  an  adherent  of  Felix  who  had  come  over  to  the 
other  side,  was  elected  by  a  large  majority  of  clergy  and 
laity.  Damasus  was  a  Roman.  His  father  before  him  had 
passed  through  all  the  degrees  of  the  hierarchy.^  He  was 
a  man  of  high  character  and  some  literary  knowledge,^  and 
was  favourably  regarded  by  the  Christian  aristocracy.  His 
enemies  were  wont  to  cast  at  him  as  a  reproach  the 
popularity  he  enjoyed  with  the  matrons  ^ ;  they  had  not 
forgotten  his  readiness  to  accept  Felix,  after  having  made 
some  show  of  zeal  at  the  moment  of  the  departure  of 
Liberius.  Once  elected,  he  took  no  immediate  steps  to 
obtain  ordination:  no  doubt,  it  was  too  late  in  the  day. 
The  ceremony  was  therefore  deferred  until  the  following 
Sunday. 

The  meeting  in  the  Church  of  Lucina  had  hardly 
broken  up,  when  news  was  brought  of  what  had  just  taken 
place  in  Trastevere.  Feelings,  as  is  always  the  case 
in  these  popular  elections,  were  in  a  highly  excitable 
condition.  The  most  ardent,  among  whom  were  included, 
we  are  told,  the  circus-drivers  and  other  persons  of  the 
same  type,  rushed  en  masse  towards  the  basilica  of  Julius. 
The   followers  of   Ursinus   offered    resistance.      A   battle 

^  Inscription  (Ihm.  No.  57)  in  S.  Lorenzo  in  Damaso,  a  church 
which  was  erected,  it  would  seem,  upon  the  site  of  his  father's  house. 

"  His  verses  display  some  knowledge  of  Vergil.     We  shall  have 
to  speak  later  of  his  relations  with  St  Jerome. 

^  They  called  him  the  ear-scratcher  of  the  ladies,  auriscalpius 
matronarmn  {Coll.  AvelL,  loc.  cit.). 


I'.  157]  DAMASUS  AND  URSINUS  363 

ensued  :  cudgels  were  brought  into  play,  some  were 
wounded,  some  even  killed.  The  riot  lasted  three  days. 
On  the  following  Sunday,  October  i,  the  basilica  of  the 
Lateran  which  had  been  put  in  a  state  of  defence  by  the 
adherents  of  Damasus  witnessed  the  consecration  of  the 
lawful  bishop.  It  was  the  Bishop  of  Ostia  who,  according 
to  custom,  took  the  chief  part  in  this  ceremony. 

What  were  the  forces  of  authority  doing  in  the  midst 
of  all  this  disorder  ?  The  Prefect  of  Rome,  Viventius,  was 
a  wise  and  conscientious  man,  but  of  a  disposition  not 
easily  roused  to  action.  He  made  laudable  efforts  to 
appease  the  populace ;  but  failing  of  success,  he  made 
up  his  mind  to  leave  the  city  and  retire  to  a  country- 
house  some  way  off,  hoping,  no  doubt,  in  this  way  to 
shelter  his  person  and  his  authority.  Gradually,  his  mind 
regained  the  calm  which  had  been  disturbed  ;  he  recognized 
the  regularity  of  the  ordination  of  Damasus,  and  decided 
that  Ursinus  should  be  exiled  from  Rome,  with  the  two 
deacons,  Amantius  and  Lupus,  who  were,  after  him,  the  chief 
leaders  of  his  party.  This  was  done.  But  the  dissenting 
party  held  out ;  the  seven  priests  who  were  with  them 
continued  to  bring  them  together  in  schismatical  meetings. 
Damasus  then  appealed  to  authority.  The  seven  priests 
were  arrested ;  but,  as  the  guards  were  conducting  them 
out  of  Rome,  the  partisans  of  Ursinus  fell  upon  the 
escort,  set  the  prisoners  free,  and  led  them  in  triumph  to 
the  basilica  of  Liberius,^  where  they  installed  themselves 
as  in  a  fortress. 

But  the  adherents  of  Damasus  did  not  leave  them  to 
enjoy  their  success.  On  October  26,  an  opposition  mob, 
in  which  several  of  the  clergy  were  mixed  up,  proceeded 
to  lay  siege  to  the  basilica  on  the  Esquiline.  The  doors 
were  closed  and  strongly  defended.  While  these  were 
being  assailed  with  hatchets  and  fire,  the  most  nimble  of 
Damasus'  supporters  climbed  on  to  the  roof,  effected  an 
opening    in   it,  and  through  this   poured  down  a  hail  of 

^  In  its  main  structure,  including  the  colonnades  and  the  mosaics 
which  crown  them,  the  basilica  of  Liberius  has  been  preserved  down 
to  our  own  day. 


364  POPE  DAMASUS  [on.  xiii. 

tiles  upon  the  partisans  of  Ursinus.  At  last  the  doors 
gave  way  ;  and  an  appalling  conflict  ensued.  When  order 
was  re-established,  a  hundred  and  thirty-seven  dead 
bodies  were  taken  up.^  We  may  well  believe  that  the 
Ursinian  party  made  the  most  of  these  victims ;  it  was 
admitted  that  the  besiegers  had  not  lost  a  single  man. 
Although  much  damaged,  the  basilica  continued  to  be 
the  scene  of  schismatical  meetings :  in  these  protests 
were  made  against  the  violence  done,  the  assistance  of 
the  emperor  was  invoked,  and  a  council  was  demanded. 
But  gradually  the  guards  of  the  prefect  succeeded  in 
restoring  outward  order. 

A  year  after  these  events,  Valentinian,  thinking  that 
the  passions  of  the  parties  were  now  sufficiently  allayed, 
allowed  Ursinus  and  the  other  exiles  to  return  to  Rome. 
On  September  15,  367,  the  anti-pope  made  a  solemn 
re-entry  into  the  city,  amid  the  acclamations  of  his 
supporters,  who  lost  no  time  in  renewing  the  disturbance, 
with  the  result  that  the  emperor,  finding  his  hopes  were 
mistaken,  caused  Ursinus  to  be  expelled  again  (November 
16).  The  prefect  Viventius  had  been  replaced  by  Vettius 
Agorius  Prsetextatus,  a  man  much  esteemed  for  his  amiable 
character  and  highly  cultivated  mind.  He  was  a  pagan, 
and  a  very  zealous  one.  The  inscriptions  which  mention 
him,  together  with  his  wife  Aconia  Paulina,^  extol  his 
piety  towards  the  gods,  and  enumerate  in  stately  terms 
the  priestly  offices  which  he  held.  It  was  he  who,  when 
Pope  Damasus  urged  him  to  be  converted,  replied : 
"  Willingly,  if  you  will  make  me  Bishop  of  Rome."  * 
Ammianus  Marcellinus  makes  a  similar  reflection,  in  close 
connection  with  the  rival  claims  of  Ursinus.  He  thinks 
it  very  natural  that  there  should  be  a  contest  for  such  a 
position  as  that  of  bishop  of  the  capital,  "  for,"  he  says, 
"if  that   post  is  once  gained,  a  man  enjoys   in  peace  a 

^  This  is  the  number  given  by  Ammianus  Marcellinus  ;  the  Cesta 
speaks  of  one  hundred  and  sixty  dead  ;  the  Chronicle  of  St  Jerome 
(a.  Abr.  2382),  mentions  only  criidelissimae  interfectiones  diversi  sexus. 

2  Coll.  Avell.  5.     Letter  to  the  prefect  Praetextatus. 

^  Corpus  Inscript.  Lat,  vol.  vi.,  Nos.  1 777-1 781. 

■'  Jerome,  Contra  Joh.  Micros.  8. 


p.  459]    LUXURY  IN  THE  ROMAN  CHURCH         365 

fortune  assured  by  the  generosity  of  the  matrons ;  he  can 
ride  abroad  in  a  carriage,  clothed  in  magnificent  robes, 
and  can  give  banquets,  the  luxury  of  which  surpasses  that 
of  the  emperor's  table,"  He  adds  that  it  would  be  better 
to  imitate  the  poverty  and  simplicity  of  certain  provincial 
bishops,  whose  virtue  is  a  recommendation  for  Christianity.^ 
Ammianus  was  not  the  only  man  to  deplore  the  progress 
of  comfort  among  the  Roman  clergy.  St  Jerome  has 
censured  with  much  vigour  the  strange  abuses  which  the 
increasing  prosperity  of  the  Church  of  Rome  introduced 
into  its  midst.     But  we  must  return  to  the  schismatics. 

The  basilica  of  Liberius  had  remained  in  their  hands. 
Damasus  laid  claim  to  it  through  the  "protector"  of  his 
Church,  and  Valentinian,  who  did  not  wish  for  disorders 
in  Rome,  caused  this  edifice  to  be  restored  to  him.^  At 
the  same  time,  the  priests,  who  presided  over  the  meetings 
of  the  Ursinians,  were  banished.^  But  the  ferment  took 
some  time  in  subsiding.  They  assembled,  on  Sundays 
and  Feast-days,  in  the  cemeteries  in  the  outskirts  of 
the  city,  and  the  Office  was  celebrated  as  well  as  it 
could  be  in  the  absence  of  clergy.  The  Church  of  St 
Agnes,  on  the  Via  Nomentana,  was  one  of  the  meeting- 
places  of  the  dissentients.  One  day,  a  terrible  affray  took 
place  there,  in  which  the  Ursinians  got  the  worst  of  it, 
and  were  ejected.  After  this  it  was  necessary  to  forbid  to 
the  promoters  of  disturbance,  not  only  the  city  but  the 
outskirts  as  well,  within  a  radius  of  twenty  miles.^ 
Ursinus  himself  was  sent  off  to  Gaul.  Some  time  after- 
wards, permission  was  granted  to  him  and  to  certain  of  his 
supporters  to  reside  in  Northern  Italy  ^;  but  they  were 
forbidden  to  come  near  Rome.  The  imperial  rescripts 
relating  to  this  affair  show  us  Valentinian  for  ever 
divided  between  a  dread  of  interfering  too  vigorously  in 
a  religious  dispute  and  his  anxiety  for  public  tranquillity, 
which  was  very  difficult  to  maintain  in  the  midst  of  the 
unoccupied  and  restless  populace  of  the  ancient  capital. 

^  Ammianus,  xxvii.  3,  14.  ^  Coll.  Avell.  6  (end  of  367). 

^  Ibid.  7,  January  12,  368.  *  Ibid.  8,  9,  10  (end  of  368). 

''  Ibid.  II,  12  (end  of  370  to  summer  of  372). 


366  POPE  DAMASUS  [CH.  xiii. 

As  for  Damasus,  his  victory  had  cost  him  too  dear  : 
his  promotion  had  been  accompanied  by  too  much  poHce 
action,  too  many  imperial  rescripts,  too  many  corpses. 
The  whole  of  his  Pontificate  felt  the  effects  of  it.  And 
besides,  Ursinus  had  never  laid  down  his  arms ;  as  long 
as  he  lived,  he  never  ceased  his  implacable  hostility  to 
his  rival.  As  he  could  not  dethrone  him,  he  tried  to 
get  rid  of  him  by  means  of  criminal  prosecutions.  There 
was  already  a  question  of  an  attempt  of  this  kind  about 
the  year  370,^  and  another,  as  we  shall  see,  happened  later. 

It  was  not  only  with  the  schism  of  Ursinus  that  the 
Pope  had  to  deal.  Rome  was  full  of  '  Little  Churches.' 
Not  to  speak  of  such  remnants  as  there  might  be  of  old 
sects,  such  as  Valentinians,  Marcionites,  Montanists,  and 
Sabellians,  the  Novatian  Church  still  continued  to  exist, 
governed  by  a  series  of  bishops,  who  linked  themselves 
on  to  the  old  episcopal  succession,  from  St  Peter  to 
Fabian.  The  African  Christians,  who  had  found  a  home 
in  Rome,  if  they  belonged  to  the  Catholic  confession,  that 
of  Caecilian,  attended  the  same  churches  as  the  Catholics  of 
Rome  ;  but  the  Donatists  were  organized  separately,  under 
bishops  of  their  own  country,^  They  were  called  Moun- 
taineers, Montenses,  no  doubt  on  account  of  some  local 
peculiarity.  There  were  also  the  Luciferians,  so-called, 
those  who  had   taken   the   same   attitude   as    Lucifer   of 

'  Gratian  alludes  to  this  in  his  rescript  to  Aquilinus  {Coll. 
AvelL  No.  13,  p.  57,  Giinther) :  iudiciorutn  examine  exploratuni 
mentis  sanctissitnae  virum  (Damasus),  ut  etiam  divo  patri  ?iostro 
Valentiniano  est  comprobatum.  It  is  no  doubt  to  this  affair  that 
Rufinus  alludes,  in  the  passage  (ii.  10)  in  which  he  speaks  of  the 
ill-will  of  the  prefect  Maximin.  This  official  was  Praefectus  Annonas 
in  369-370  ;  he  replaced  the  prefect  of  Rome  who  was  ill,  and  showed 
a  severity  during  this  provisional  tenure  of  office  which  made  him 
hated  by  everyone.  A  little  later  (371-372),  he  was  Vicar  of  Rome, 
i.e.^  of  the  Dicecesis  suburbicaria. 

2  This  episcopal  succession  was  known  to  Optatus,  ii.  4.  It 
began  with  a  certain  Victor,  who  was  present  as  Bishop  of  Garba  at 
the  Council  of  Cirta  (305)  and  later  on  established  himself  in  Rome. 
He  was  succeeded  by  Boniface,  Encolpius,  Macrobius,  known  by 
some  of  his  writings,  Lucian,  and  Claudian.  This  Claudian  gave  a 
great  deal  of  trouble  to  Damasus,  as  we  shall  see  later. 


p.  462]  SECTS  AT  ROME  367 

Caliaris  (Cagliari)  and  Gregory  of  Illiberris  against 
the  defaulters  of  Ariminum,  men  to  whom  Liberius, 
Hilary,  Eusebius  of  Vercellae,  and  even  Athanasius  him- 
self, were  palterers  with  the  truth.  They  had  a  bishop 
who  was  named  Aurelius ;  but  the  most  renowned 
personage  of  their  party  was  a  priest  called  Macarius, 
whose  austerities  were  famous.  The  meetings  of  these 
dissentients  were  held,  for  lack  of  churches,  in  private 
houses.  The  police,  stimulated  by  denunciations  from  the 
Lateran,  made  life  hard  for  the  schismatics.  Macarius, 
who  was  arrested  during  a  religious  service,  suffered  much 
from  the  brutality  of  the  common  people.  Being  con- 
demned to  exile,  he  died  at  Ostia  from  a  wound  which  he 
had  received  when  he  was  arrested.  The  Bishop  of  Ostia, 
Florentius,  apparently  more  moved  by  his  virtues  than 
shocked  by  his  uncompromising  obstinacy,  gave  him 
honourable  burial  in  the  basilica  of  the  martyr  Asterius.^ 
His  party  rallied  again  under  the  leadership  of  a  certain 
Bishop  Ephesius.  Damasus  had  some  trouble  in  getting 
rid  of  this  new  rival.- 

The  Bishop  of  Ostia,  although  he  had  presided  at  the 
ordination  of  Pope  Damasus,  does  not  seem  to  have  had 
much  taste  for  his  continual  appeal  to  the  secular  arm. 
We  can  easily  understand  what  would  be  thought  of  this, 
alike  by  those  who  had  consecrated  Ursinus  and  by  the 
other  bishops  who  had  approved  of  his  ordination. 
Damasus  had  therefore  to  struggle,  not  only  against  a 
Roman  party,  determined  and  always  ready  for  disturbance, 
but  also  against  a  strong  opposition  among  the  Italian 
bishops.  He  tried,  we  are  told,  to  obtain  the  condemna- 
tion of  Ursinus  from  a  council  assembled  in  honour  of  his 
natale,  in  367  or  368  ;  but  the  bishops,  although  remaining 
in  communion  with  the  Pope,  seem  to  have  refused  to 
pronounce  a  sentence  against  an  absent  man.'' 

^  LibelL  ■precutn.  77-82. 

2  Ibid.  84-91,  104-107.  The  prefect  Bassus,  mentioned  in  this 
account,  belongs  to  the  year  382. 

^  Gesta  inter  Lib.  et  Fel.  13,  an  Ursinian  document,  we  must 
remember. 


368  POPE  DAM  ASUS  [ch.  xiii. 

Also,  as  the  favour  of  the  government  was  so  necessary 
to  him,  he  was  not  disposed  to  cause  difficulties  in  that 
direction.  The  Emperor  Valentinian,  as  we  have  seen, 
would  not  admit  that  the  State  was  justified  in  taking 
measures  against  those  prelates  who  had  remained  faithful 
to  the  confession  of  Ariminum.  It  would  have  been  a 
delicate  matter  for  Pope  Damasus  to  set  himself  counter 
to  this  policy  of  pacification.  Athanasius  also  had  some 
difficulty  in  inducing  him  to  take  action  against  the  few 
Arian  bishops  who  remained  in  the  Western  Empire.  He 
tried  it  first  ^  with  regard  to  Ursacius,  Valens,  and  the 
other  "  Illyrians."  It  was  a  more  difficult  matter  as  to 
Auxentius,  who  had  been  specially  authorized  by  the 
Emperor  Valentinian.  At  last  the  Pope  made  up  his 
mind  to  act,  and  in  a  second  council,  held  at  the 
instigation  of  Athanasius,  he  declared  ^  that  the  Creed  of 
Nicaea  was  the  only  authorized  Creed,  and  that  that  of 
Ariminum  could  not  replace  it.  In  an  incidental  phrase 
he  speaks  of  a  condemnation  already  pronounced  against 
Auxentius,  quoting  as  authorities  the  Bishops  of  Gaul  and 
Venetia,  behind  whom  he  entrenches  himself.  At  the  end 
of  the  synod ical  letter,  he  expresses  a  hope  that  the 
irreconcilables  will  speedily  lose  the  title  of  bishops,  and 
that  their  churches  will  be  delivered  from  them. 

This  was  not  very  explicit.  But  perhaps  Damasus 
was  right  not  to  run  any  risk.  What  would  have  been 
the  use?  It  was  certain  that  Valentinian  would  take  no 
steps  to  dispossess  bishops  already  recognized  by  him, 
and  accepted  by  their  people.  Therefore,  the  best  thing 
to  do  was  to  wait  till  they  died,  and  then  replace  them  by 
orthodox  successors. 

Auxentius  did  not  put  the  patience  of  the  Pope  to  too 
long  a  test :  he  died  in  the  autumn  of  374.  The  business 
of  replacing  him  gave  rise  to  serious  conflicts  between  the 
orthodox  party,  determined  to  secure  possession  of  the 
bishopric,  and  the  Arians,  equally  determined  to  keep  it, 

1  Athan.  Ep.  ad  Afros  10. 

"  Jaflfe,  232,    Confidimiis  quidetn  ;    cf.   Sozomen,    H.   E.    vi.  23 ; 
Theodoret,  H.  E.  ii.  22. 


p.  464]  CHILDHOOD  OF  AMBROSE  369 

The  province  of  yEmilia-Liguria  had  as  its  consular  at 
this  time  a  Roman  nobleman  named  Ambrose.^  At  the 
time  of  his  birth,  his  father,  also  called  Ambrose,  was 
prstorian  prefect  of  the  Gauls.  He  already  had  other 
children,  a  daughter,  named  Marcellina,  and  a  son,  Satyrus. 
The  young  Ambrose  was  brought  up  in  Rome  by  his 
mother  and  sister,  his  father  having  died  soon  after  his 
birth.  The  family,  one  of  the  most  illustrious  in  Rome, 
had  long  been  Christian ;  one  of  its  members,  St 
Soteris,  had  suffered  martyrdom  in  the  time  of  Maximian. 
The  Pope  sometimes  came  to  their  house ;  the  ladies 
received  him  with  the  greatest  respect,  and  kissed  his 
hand.  As  soon  as  he  had  departed,  young  Ambrose, 
still  at  a  roguish  age,  would  begin  to  imitate  his  grave 
walk  and  his  stately  gestures ;  he  even  attempted  to  make 
Marcellina  kiss  his  hand,  but  his  sister  laughingly  refused. 
As  soon  as  his  education  was  finished,  he  became  attached 
to  the  secretariat  of  the  praetorian  prefect,  Probus,  the 
most  important  Christian  nobleman  in  Rome.  Probus 
appointed  him  governor  of  ^milia-Liguria,  advising  him 
to  treat  the  people  under  his  administration  with  gentle- 
ness, like  a  bishop,  not  like  a  magistrate.  Probus  was  a 
prophet.  The  episcopal  election  having,  as  I  said  before, 
much  excited  the  minds  of  the  populace,  a  great  com- 
motion took  place  in  the  church,  and  the  governor  thought 
it  his  duty  to  go  there.  Suddenly,  a  child's  cry  was 
heard  :  "  Ambrose  Bishop  !  "  Both  parties  at  once  took  up 
the  cry  with  a  united  acclamation.  It  was  in  vain  that 
Ambrose  protested,  and  employed  every  effort  to  escape 
from  the  popular  favour,  declaring  that  he  had  not  been 
baptized.  He  was  not  listened  to.  The  bishops  who 
were  present  deemed  that  his  name  was  the  only  one  on 
which  agreement  was  possible.  They  passed  over  the 
rules  which  forbade  the  ordination  of  neophytes.  Ambrose 
was  baptized  on  November  30,  and  ordained  eight  days 
afterwards  (December  7). 

1  Aurelius  Anibrosius.  The  biographical  details  as  to  St  Ambrose 
come  to  us  through  his  secretary,  the  deacon  Paulinus,  who  wrote 
the  life  of  his  master  at  the  request  of  St  Augustine. 

II  2  A 


370  POPE  DAMASUS  [ch.  xiii. 

Thus  suddenly  raised  to  the  episcopate,  he  had  much 
to  learn,  if  not  of  Christianity  in  general,  at  any  rate,  of 
theology.  As  he  had  studied  Greek,  he  set  himself  to 
read  the  works  of  Philo,  Origen,  Basil,  and  Didymus. 
Immediately  after  his  consecration,  he  had  occasion  to 
correspond  with  the  illustrious  Bishop  of  Caesarea,  who 
congratulated  him  upon  his  appointment.^  The  Church  of 
Milan  had  soon  cause  for  satisfaction  at  having  secured 
such  a  pastor.  But  it  was  not  only  to  this  Church  that  he 
had  been  given ;  it  was  to  the  whole  body  of  Christians  of 
that  time.     This  soon  became  evident. 

However,  the  Emperor  Valentinian  died  suddenly  at 
Brigetio,  in  Pannonia,  on  November  17,  375.  He  left  two 
sons :  Gratian,  the  elder,  aged  sixteen,  who  had  been 
associated  with  his  father  in  the  Empire  for  some  years,^ 
was  at  Treves  when  his  father  died  ;  the  other,  Valentinian, 
still  quite  young,  was  living  at  Sirmium  with  his  mother, 
the  Empress  Justina.  The  army  on  the  Danube,  without 
consulting  Gratian,  associated  his  younger  brother  with 
him  in  the  government ;  Gratian  confirmed  this  arrange- 
ment, but  without  depriving  himself  of  the  government  of 
the  whole  of  the  West.  Ambrose,  whose  election  had 
been  received  by  the  dead  emperor  with  great  satisfaction, 
remained  always  devoted  to  his  family.  So  long  as 
Gratian  lived,  the  bishop  was  his  trusted  adviser. 

Italy  was  still  disturbed  by  the  obstinacy  of  Ursinus. 
The  suburbicarian  provinces  being  forbidden  to  him,  he 
stirred  up  strife  at  Milan,  joining  his  efforts  to  those  of  the 
Arians,  who  had  now  passed  into  the  condition  of  dis- 
senters, troubling  Ambrose  in  his  official  duties,  and 
thwarting  his  plans.  His  hand  was  seen  once  more  at 
Rome  in  various  intrigues.  In  374,  the  emperor  was 
obliged  to  write  on  this  subject  to  the  Vicarius  Simplicius.^ 
Powerless,  in  spite  of  all  his  efforts,  to  gain  possession  of 
the  Lateran,  the  anti-pope  set  himself  to  drive  his  rival 

1  Basil,  Ep.  197. 

2  Gratian  was  born  on  April  18,  359;  he  was  associated  in  the 
empire  on  August  24,  367. 

^  The  letter  is  lost,  but  it  is  quoted  in  Coll.  Avell.  No.  13. 


p.  467]        INTRIGUES  AGAINST  DAMASUS  371 

out  of  it.  A  criminal  process  was  undertaken  against 
Damasus  by  Isaac,  a  converted  Jew.  At  this  time,  the 
Roman  magistrates  prided  themselves,  following  the  ex- 
ample of  Valentinian,  on  their  extreme  severity.  We  do 
not  know  of  what  crime  Damasus  was  accused,^  but  it 
was  evidently  of  some  capital  offence,  and  the  affair,  being 
vigorously  pursued  before  the  prefect  of  Rome,  was  threaten- 
ing to  end  in  a  condemnation,  when  Gratian  was  induced 
to  intervene.  The  emperor  tried  the  case  himself,  gave 
judgment,  and  sent  the  venerable  Pontiff  away  acquitted 
of  the  charge.  Isaac  was  exiled  to  Spain ;  Ursinus 
was  imprisoned  at  Cologne.  Isaac  shortly  afterwards 
renounced  Christianity  and  returned  to  the  synagogue.' 
Such  attempts  were  characteristic  of  the  ethics  of  the  time. 
We  may  judge  what  security  could  be  enjoyed  by  bishops, 
especially  bishops  of  great  towns,  exposed  as  they  were, 
in  the  exercise  of  their  multifarious  functions,  to  the 
danger  of  offending  so  many  people  and  of  making  so 
many  enemies. 

Damasus  was  not  satisfied  with  the  testimony  which  the 
imperial  decision  had  just  given  in  favour  of  his  innocence ; 
he  wished  the  whole  affair  to  be  discussed  in  a  council.     A 

^  The  legend  of  the  Liber  Pontificalis  speaks  of  adultery  ;  but,  as 
Damasus  was  nearly  eighty  years  of  age,  such  a  charge  would  have 
been  far  too  improbable. 

-  This  Isaac,  during  his  Christian  period,  published  several  works 
of  theology  and  exegesis.  Gennadius  {De  viris,  26)  knew  of,  and  we 
still  possess  (Migne,  P.  L.,  vol.  xxxiii.,  p.  1541),  a  small  treatise  on  the 
Trinity  and  the  Incarnation.  To  Isaac  must  also  be  attributed  an 
"Explanation  of  the  Catholic  Faith,"  published  in  1883  by  Caspari 
{Kirchenhistorische  Anecdoia,  vol.  i.,  p.  304).  Dom  G.  Morin  {Revue 
dUiist.  et  de  litt.  rclig.  1899,  p.  97  et  seq.)  has  proposed  to  attribute 
to  him  two  important  works,  the  Commentary  known  as  Ambrosiaster's 
upon  the  Epistles  of  St  Paul,  and  the  Quaestiones  V.  et  N.  Testamenli, 
both  written  in  Rome  in  the  time  of  Pope  Damasus.  This  hypothesis 
is  very  probable,  and  still  remains  so,  although  {Revue  Be'ne'dicii?ie, 
1903)  P-  113)  its  author  has  abandoned  it,  I  think,  with  Martin 
Schanz  {Gesch.  derrbm,  Litteratur,  part  iv.,  p.  455),  that  Dom  Morin 
has  not  succeeded  in  refuting  himself,  and  that  the  new  solution 
which  he  proposes  for  this  literary  problem  is  far  from  possessing  the 
same  value  as  the  first. 


372  POPE  DAMASUS  [ch.  xiii. 

meeting  of  bishops  from  all  parts  of  Italy  assembled  in 
Rome  in  378.^  They  presented  to  the  emperor  a  petition, 
which  we  still  possess  as  well  as  Gratian's  reply.  The 
bishops  reminded  him  that,  during  an  earlier  phase  of  the 
affair  of  Ursinus,  the  sovereign  had  decided  that,  while  the 
police  concerned  themselves  with  the  banishment  of  the 
author  of  the  disturbances,  it  was  the  Pope's  function  to 
take  measures  against  the  bishops  who  had  espoused 
his  cause.  This  was  perfectly  just.  Granted  the  attitude 
adopted  in  religious  matters  by  the  Emperor  Valentinian, 
the  State  could  have  no  idea  of  interfering  in  ecclesiastical 
decisions ;  its  special  duty  was  to  guard  against  public 
order  being  compromised.  Nevertheless,  contingencies 
might  arise,  when  the  efficacy  of  ecclesiastical  sentences, 
and  the  services  which  they  were  called  upon  to  render 
from  the  point  of  view  of  good  order,  might  be  com- 
promised by  too  complete  an  abstention  on  the  part  of  the 
State.  Therefore,  the  bishops  demanded  the  assistance  of 
the  strong  arm  of  the  law,  first  in  securing  the  appearance 
of  the  rebellious  prelates,  and  afterwards  in  preventing 
the  deposed  bishops  from  stirring  up  strife  in  the  churches 
which  the  ecclesiastical  judge  had  withdrawn  from  their 
jurisdiction.  Several  cases  are  specified.  The  Bishops  of 
Parma  and  Puteoli  refused  to  submit  to  the  sentences  of 
deposition  passed  against  them ;  an  African  Bishop, 
Restitutus,  and  Claudian,  the  Donatist  Bishop  of  Rome, 
are  also  mentioned. 

But  this  council  was  chiefly  occupied  with  Isaac's 
affair,  still  quite  recent.  It  endeavoured  to  secure  that  the 
Pope  at  any  rate  should  be  protected  against  such  attempts. 
The  emperor,  it  said,  has  investigated  the  conduct  of 
Damasus ;  false  accusers  ought  henceforward  to  be  for- 
bidden to  drag  him  before  the  magistrate.  If  there  was 
any  occasion  for  a  trial,  and  if  the  case  was  not  within 
the  competence  of  the  council,  at  least  it  ought  to  be 
carried  before  the  emperor  in  person.  In  addition  to 
the    recent    case,   there    was    another    precedent :    Pope 

^  In  the  collections  of  councils  ;  see  also  Constant,  Ep.  Rom. 
Pont.  p.  523. 


p.  469]   ■  DEATH  OF  URSINUS  373 

Silvester,  being  accused  by  sacrilegious  persons,  was 
judged  by  the  Emperor  Constantine. 

In  consequence  of  these  representations  Gratian 
addressed  to  the  Vicar  Aquilinus  a  rescript,^  in  which 
on  all  these  points  he  expresses  agreement  with  the  views 
of  the  council.  However,  so  far  as  regards  the  exceptional 
jurisdiction  claimed  for  the  Pope,  he  confines  himself  to 
enjoining  that  the  accusations  or  testimony  of  persons  of 
doubtful  character  or  well  known  as  calumniators  are  not 
readily  to  be  admitted.-  This  is  equivalent  to  a  refusal. 
The  Pope  remained,  like  his  flock,  subject  theoretically 
to  the  jurisdiction  of  the  prefect  of  Rome.  We  must 
add,  however,  that  after  the  pontificate  of  Damasus  there 
is  no  mention  of  such  jurisdiction  being  exercised  over 
any  of  his  successors. 

It  might  have  been  thought  that  things  were  now 
arranged,  and  that  Ursinus  would  remain  quiet.  But 
it  was  not  so.  The  young  emperor  was  good-natured 
and  weak,  and  he  allowed  himself  to  be  appealed  to  and 
beguiled.  The  agents  of  the  anti-pope,  in  particular  a 
eunuch  called  Paschasius,  were  furiously  active  in  Rome. 
In  381  the  prefect  sent  to  Court  a  report,  in  which  the 
whole  matter  seemed  to  have  been  reopened.  Just  at 
that  time  a  council  met  at  Aquileia.  Ambrose,  who 
was  its  moving  spirit,  obtained  from  it  a  very  urgent 
application  to  Gratian.^  It  is  the  last  time  we  hear  of 
Ursinus.     He  died,  no  doubt,  soon  afterwards. 

When  appealed  to,  as  he  constantly  was,  by  the  Eastern 
bishops  to  pity  their  position,  Damasus  might  well  have 
replied  that  his  own  was  scarcely  to  be  envied,  and  that 
he  found  himself  no  more  than  they  on  a  bed  of  roses  ! 

The  Council  of  Aquileia,*  of  which   I   have  just  been 

'  Coll.  Avell.  n.  13:  Ordinarioriim  sententias,  in  the  last  months 

of  378- 

^  "  Ne  facile  sit  cuicumque  perdito  notabili  pravitate  morum  aut 
infami  calumnia  notato  personam  criminatoris  assumere  aut  testimonii 
dictionem  in  accusationem  episcopi  profiteri." 

•^  Ambrose,  Ep.  11. 

^  Upon  the  Council  of  Aquileia,  see  the  record  preserved  amongst 
the   letters  of  St  Ambrose  (after  letter  8),  letters  9-12  of  the  same 


374  POPE  DAMASUS  [ch.  xiii. 

speaking,  is  connected  with  a  whole  campaign,  undertaken 
and  resolutely  carried  out  by  Ambrose,  to  extinguish 
in  the  Western  empire  the  last  fires  of  Arianism.  We 
have  seen  that  the  Emperor  Valentinian's  neutrality 
in  regard  to  creeds  allowed  certain  bishops  who  had 
remained  loyal  to  the  "faith"  of  Ariminum  to  retain 
possession  of  their  sees.  The  orthodox  bishops  had  to 
protect  themselves  as  well  as  they  could.  In  Spain,  in 
Gaul,  and  in  Italy,  from  the  days  of  Eusebius  of  Vercellae 
and  of  Hilary,  the  orthodox  party  had  held  council  after 
council,  and  had  multiplied  declarations  in  favour  of 
the  Creed  of  Nicaea ;  it  was  everywhere  proclaimed 
as  the  only  one  to  be  accepted.  When  Damasus  had 
solemnly  taken  up  his  position  against  Ursacius,  Valens, 
and  even  Auxentius,  other  episcopal  meetings  were  held 
in  Sicily,  Dalmatia,  Dardania,  Macedonia,  the  two  Epiri, 
in  Achaia  and  in  Crete  ^  ;  in  short,  in  all  the  provinces 
of  Illyricum,  always  excepting  those  nearest  to  the 
Danube,-  where  the  movement  in  favour  of  Nicsea  was 
thwarted  by  a  certain  amount  of  resistance.  In  Africa 
also  there  seems  to  have  been  some  hesitation.  The 
Bishop  of  Carthage,  Restitutus,-"^  had  played  an  important 
part  in  the  "betrayal"  of  359;  the  Creed  of  Ariminum 
had  its  defenders  in  Africa,  and  Restitutus  himself  seems 
to  have  remained  attached  to  it  for  a  long  time.  Athan- 
asius  was  uneasy  at  this  state  of  things.     Although    the 

author,  and  the  fragments  of  Maximin's  book  against  Ambrose  in 
Fr.  Kaufifmann,  Aus  der  Schule  des  Wulfila  (Strassburg,  1899), 

'  Athan.,  Ep.  ad  Afros,  i. 

^  The  two  Dacias,  Upper  Mesia,  and  the  Pannonian  provinces. 

2  This  is,  I  think,  the  same  Restitutus  mentioned  in  the  council's 
letter  to  the  emperor  (c.  6  see  above,  p.  372).  It  is  generally  allowed 
that  the  person  referred  to  there  is  a  Donatist  ;  but  the  Donatists 
are  mentioned  separately  in  the  phrase  which  follows.  The  rescript 
to  Aquilinus  does  not  speak  of  him  and  could  not  have  done  so,  because 
the  case  of  that  bishop  belonged  to  the  jurisdiction  of  the  African 
authorities,  and  had  nothing  to  do  with  the  Itahan  officials.  Besides, 
if  the  Bishop  of  Carthage  had  once  more  become  favourable  to  the 
Creed  of  Nicasa,  there  would  have  been  no  need  for  St  Athanasius 
to  interfere  ;  at  any  rate  he  would  not  have  failed  to  mention  in  his 
letter  so  important  a  fact. 


p.  472]        ATHANASIUS  AND  RESTITUTUS  375 

affairs  of  Africa  belonged  rather  to  the  jurisdiction  of 
Rome  than  to  his  own,  he  thought  it  his  duty  to  come 
to  the  assistance  of  Pope  Damasus,  and  wrote  a  cele- 
brated letter  "  to  the  Africans  "  in  which  he  inculcated  upon 
them  the  necessity  of  abandoning  the  formula  of  Ariminum 
and  adopting  that  of  Nicaea.  Restitutus  refused  to  be 
convinced  and  maintained  his  position.  Proceedings 
were  taken  against  him  from  Rome;  an  attempt  was 
made  to  compel  him  to  appear  before  a  tribunal  of 
bishops,  and  a  rescript  was  even  obtained  to  that  effect 
from  the  Emperor  Gratian  ;  but  the  accused  disobeyed 
and  did  not  appear.  The  matter,  however,  was  arranged 
shortly  afterwards,  either  by  the  death  of  Restitutus 
or  by  his  return  to  orthodoxy. 

There  remained  the  Danubian  provinces  where  the 
opposition  to  Nicaea  was  deeply  rooted,  and  was  maintained 
in  spite  of  all  exhortations  from  councils.  It  would  only 
have  been  labour  lost  if  Athanasius  had  written  to  them. 
But  gradually  death  thinned  the  ranks  of  the  opposing 
bishops ;  and  the  new  holders  of  the  sees  were  of  con- 
forming opinions. 

When  Germinius  died,  Ambrose  succeeded  in  placing 
in  the  important  see  of  Sirmium  an  orthodox  bishop 
named  Anemius.  It  was  not  without  difficulty  that  he 
achieved  this ;  for  the  Empress  Justina,  who  lived  at 
Sirmium,  was  an  enthusiastic  Arian  and  fought  with 
all  her  might  against  the  intention  of  the  Bishop  of 
Milan.  Even  before  the  consecration  of  Anemius,  two 
Danubian  bishops,  Palladius  ofRatiaria,i  and  Secundianus, 
who  had  been  disturbed  apparently  on  account  of  their 
doctrine  and  threatened  with  the  loss  of  their  bishoprics, 
had  obtained  the  consent  of  Gratian  to  their  cause  being 
judged  by  an  CEcumenical  Council  which  was  to  be  held 
at  Aquileia.  Delayed  for  some  unknown  reasons,  amongst 
which,  however,  we  may  certainly  include  the  ravages 
made  by  the  invasion  of  the  Goths,  the  council  opened 
at  last  on  September  3,  381.  It  included  a  certain  number 
of  bishops  from  Upper  Italy  {dioecesis  Italiae)  and  from 
'  Artcher,  south  of  Vidin,  in  the  modern  Bulgaria. 


376  POPE  DAMASUS  [ch.  xiii. 

the  "  diocese  "  of  Pannonia ;  from  three  other  "  dioceses," 
Africa,  Gaul,  and  the  Five  Provinces,  representatives  had 
been  appointed  by  the  body  of  bishops.  Pope  Damasus, 
seeing  no  necessity  for  such  a  display  of  ecclesiastical 
forces,  sent  no  representatives,  and  even  opposed  the  idea 
of  his  own  immediate  suffragans  taking  part  in  the 
council.  No  one  came  from  Britain  or  from  Spain,  or 
from  the  Orient  either,  although  an  invitation  couched  in 
general  terms  had  been  circulated  there.  The  Eastern 
prelates  had  just  held  a  meeting  at  Constantinople ;  they 
did  not  disturb  themselves.  From  Eastern  Illyricum, 
which  included  the  "dioceses"  of  Dacia  and  of  Macedonia, 
there  came  only  the  two  bishops  concerned  whose  sees 
were  in  the  "  diocese  "  of  Dacia,  Acholius  of  Thessalonica, 
and  no  doubt  several  other  prelates  from  his  district, 
had  already  taken  part,  as  we  have  seen,  in  the  Council 
of  Constantinople.^ 

After  several  rather  confused  discussions,  the  debates 
—  presided  over  by  Ambrose,  with  the  decision  and 
clearness   of  an    official  judge — were   concentrated   upon 

^  They  took  part  in  it,  however,  on  a  special  and,  in  some  ways, 
an  unusual  summons.  The  manner  in  which  Gregory  of  Nazianzus 
speaks  of  them,  calling  them  "Westerns"  {Carm.  de  vita  sua,  line 
1802  ;  cf.  Ambrose,  Ep.  xiii.  7),  and  their  relations  with  Pope 
Damasus  (Jaffe,  237,  238)  clearly  places  them  among  the  Western 
episcopate.  This  is  still  more  evident  with  regard  to  the  bishops 
of  the  diocese  of  Dacia  ;  from  documents  of  the  Council  of  Aquileia 
it  is  plain  that  Palladius  and  Secundianus  had  their  sees  in  partibus 
Occidentalibus,  and  even  that  the  secular  authority  which  could  main- 
tain them  there  or  banish  them  thence  by  force  was  that  of  the 
Emperor  Gratian.  It  is  admitted  on  the  evidence  of  Sozomen  {H.  E. 
vii.  4)  that  Gratian  entrusted  to  Theodosius  the  care  of  governing 
Illyria  with  the  Orient :  'IWvpiovs  koI  to.  wpbs  ri\iov  dvLaxo^To-  rrjs  dpxv^ 
Q£oSoali{)  eiriTpi\pas.  Sozomen  in  speaking  of  'IWvpioi  was  undoubtedly 
thinking  of  the  Illyricum  Orientale  of  the  Notitia  Dignitatum j  but 
there  is  nothing  to  show  that  the  boundaries  established  on  that  side 
betweeen  the  imperial  jurisdictions  of  Arcadius  and  Honorius  date 
back  to  the  time  when  Theodosius  was  associated  in  the  empire. 
In  July  381  Gratian  issued  enactments  in  Mesia,  at  Viminacium 
{Cod.  Theod.  i.  10,  i;  xii.  i,  89).  Moreover,  these  provinces,  although 
they  belonged  politically  to  the  Eastern  empire,  continued  none 
the  less  to  form  part  of  the  ecclesiastical  body  of  the  West. 


p.  474-5]  COUNCIL  OF  AQUILEIA,  381  377 

an  Arian  document,  a  letter  of  Arius  himself,  in  which  his 
heretical  doctrine  was  set  out  without  any  ambiguity. 
This  letter  was  read,  and  upon  each  of  the  disputed  points 
the  dissentients  were  required  to  declare  whether  they 
accepted  or  rejected  the  expressions  of  the  arch-heretic. 
They  lost  themselves  in  evasions,  in  subtle  distinctions,  in 
disputes  as  to  the  competence  of  the  tribunal,  which  they 
did  not  consider  of  sufficient  importance.  Ambrose  told 
them  that  it  was  impossible  for  all  that  to  put  hundreds  of 
bishops  to  inconvenience,  as  had  been  done  at  the  time  of 
the  Council  of  Ariminum,  merely  to  clear  up  an  individual 
case  which  was  so  simple.  As  to  the  root  of  the  matter, 
what  Palladius  and  Secundianus  said  and  what  they  left 
unsaid  alike  combined  to  disclose  their  real  opinions.  It 
is  evident  that  they  were  Arians :  that,  for  them,  the 
Father  was  the  only  true  God  ;  and  the  Son  and  the  Holy 
Spirit  were  beings  clearly  inferior  to  Him.  The  council 
decided  that  there  was  reason  for  deposing  the  two 
bishops.  They  informed  the  emperor  of  their  sentence, 
begging  him  to  carry  it  out. 

The  Eastern  prelates,  whose  presence  Palladius  and 
his  colleague  demanded  at  Aquileia,  would  not  have 
treated  them  otherwise.  They  had  not  condemned  the 
Arians  or  Eudoxians,  replaced  Dorotheus  by  Meletius 
and  Demophilus  by  Gregory  of  Nazianzus,  to  give  any- 
one a  ground  to  claim  their  support  against  Latin 
orthodoxy.  From  this  time  forward,  there  was  no  longer 
any  loophole  through  which  it  was  possible  to  creep 
between  the  Churches  of  the  East  and  those  of  the  West 
in  order  to  introduce  or  to  support  the  heresy  of  Arius : 
both  were  agreed  to  get  rid  of  it. 

There  still  remained,  however,  between  the  two 
Churches  some  personal  disputes,  which  were  very  difficult 
to  smooth  down.  I  have  already  mentioned  in  the  last 
chapter,  how  Ambrose  had  been  the  means  of  bringing 
about  the  assembling  at  Rome  of  a  great  council  in  which 
he  hoped  that  these  matters  would  be  settled.  This 
council  was  actually  held,  but  without  result,  unless  it 
were  to  exhibit  to  the  pious  curiosity  of  the  Romans  an 


378  POPE  DAMASUS  [ch.  xiii. 

assemblage  of  celebrated  bishops,  Acholius  of  Thessalonica, 
PauHnus  of  Antioch,  Epiphanius  of  Cyprus,  and  Ambrose 
of  Milan.  This  time,  Marcellina  had  good  reason  to  kiss 
her  brother's  hand.^  Other  noble  ladies  were  eager  to 
offer  to  the  foreign  prelates  the  hospitality  of  their 
luxurious  mansions.  Besides  the  bishops,  much  notice 
was  taken  of  a  Latin  monk,  named  Jerome,  who  had 
just  been  spending  several  years  in  the  East.  A  native 
of  Dalmatia,-  he  had  come  to  Rome  to  pursue  his 
studies,  and  after  a  somewhat  dissipated  youth  had  been 
baptized  there.^  In  the  course  of  a  journey  in  Gaul, 
when  he  stopped  for  some  time  at  Treves,  he  felt  himself 
called  to  a  life  of  retirement,  prayer,  and  intellectual  work. 
One  of  his  companions  in  study,  Rufinus,  who  was  from 
Aquileia,  induced  Jerome  to  visit  his  native  town,  and 
there  he  met  with  several  persons  possessed  by  the  same 
desires  as  himself — the  priest  Chromatins,  Heliodorus  of 
Altinum,  Bonosus,  Rufinus,  Niceas,  and  others.  In  their 
company,  he  imagined  himself  already  "  in  the  kingdom  of 
the  blest.""*  In  373,  this  edifying  company  broke  up — for 
what  reason  we  do  not  know.  Whilst  Bonosus  went  to 
lead  a  hermit's  life  upon  a  rock  on  the  Dalmatian  coast, 
Rufinus  embarked  for  Alexandria,  and  Heliodorus,  Jerome, 

'  It  was  not  the  first  time  that  Marcellina  had  seen  him  since  his 
elevation  to  the  episcopate.  She  was  with  him  at  Milan  in  378  during 
a  severe  illness  which  he  had  in  that  year.  Marcellina  had  been 
consecrated  as  a  virgin  by  Pope  Liberius,  one  Christmas  day,  in  the 
basilica  of  St  Peter  (Ambrose,  De  Virginibus,  iii.  i).  She  died  at 
Milan,  after  Satyrus  and  Ambrose. 

'  Stridon,  his  native  town,  was  destroyed  during  his  lifetime,  about 
the  year  378,  by  the  Goths.  Its  situation  remains  uncertain  ;  see, 
however,  Corpus  Inscriptioniini  Latinarutn,  vol.  iii..  No.  9860  ;  and 
Bulic,  Bull.  Dalm.  vol.  xxii.  (1899),  p.  137.  Upon  St  Jerome,  see 
the  excellent  monograph  of  George  Grutzmacher,  in  the  Studien  zur 
Geschichte  der  Theologie  und  der  Kirche.,  vols.  vi.  (1901)  and  x. 
(1906). 

^  It  is  impossible  to  admit  that  the  indiscretions,  the  memory  of 
which  troubled  Jerome  in  after  years,  could  have  been  subsequent  to 
his  baptism.  In  that  case,  he  would  never  have  been  ordained 
priest. 

'  "  Aquileienses  clerici  quasi  chorus  beatorum  habentur."  Chron. 
a.  Abr.,  2390. 


p.  477]  ST  JEROME  P.79 

and  several  others  fixed  their  choice  upon  the  Syrian 
desert.  There  also  there  were  famous  solitaries,  of  whom 
they  must  have  heard  from  Evagrius,  a  priest  of  Antioch, 
who  had  just  made  a  long  stay  in  Italy.  At  this  time  he 
was  returning  to  his  own  country ;  perhaps  they  travelled 
together.  In  any  case,  it  was  from  him  that,  on  his  arrival 
at  Antioch,  Jerome  received  hospitality.  As  to  his 
companions,  two  lost  courage  and  returned  to  Venetia  ; 
two  others  died  ;  Jerome  himself  fell  sick.  It  was  then 
that  he  had  his  celebrated  dream,  in  which  he  heard 
himself  reproached  for  his  attachment  to  pagan  authors, 
and  promised  never  again  to  open  any  book  by  a  profane 
orator  or  poet.  As  soon  as  his  health  was  restored,  he 
hastened  to  learn  Greek,  and  began  the  study  of  exegesis 
under  the  guidance  of  the  famous  Apollinaris.  Finally, 
screwing  up  his  courage,  he  buried  himself  in  the  desert  of 
Chalcis,  and  at  first  attempted  to  imitate  the  extreme 
asceticism  of  the  most  renowned  monks.  But  he  was  not 
of  the  stuff  of  which  fakirs  are  made^ ;  he  returned  to  his 
books.  Shortly  afterwards,  he  compiled  the  Life  of  Paul, 
the  first  hermit  of  Egypt — a  composition  with  a  large 
element  of  myth — and  began  his  exegetical  works  by  inter- 
preting the  prophet  Obadiah.  He  also  devoted  himself 
to   Hebrew,  a  hard  penance  for  a  disciple  of  Cicero. 

His  relations  with  Apollinaris  had  not  led  him  into 
heresy,  nor  had  it  even  made  him  a  theologian.  He  was 
a  rhetorician  and  not  a  philosopher,  and  theology  had  but 
little  attraction  for  him.  Upon  that  subject  he  always 
depended  on  the  opinion  of  someone  else.  But  dogmatic 
disputes  followed  him  even  into  the  desert.  The  Meletians 
tormented  him  about  the  three  hypostases.  For  a  Latin 
such  as  he  was,  three  hypostases  meant  three  substances 
— in  other  words,  three  Gods.  Such  polytheism  was 
repugnant  to  him  in  the  last  degree.  These  perplexities 
were  increased  by  his  uncertainty  as  to  the  ecclesiastical 
position.  He  repudiated,  needless  to  say,  the  official 
Church  of  Antioch,  that    of  the  Arians,  which  was  then 

'  Upon  the  extreme  austerities  of  the  monks  of  this  country,  see  the 
next  chapter. 


380  POPE  DAMASUS  [ch.  xiii. 

strong  in  the  favour  of  the  emperor.  But  among  the  others, 
to  which  was  he  to  go?  There  were  three  Bishops  of 
Antioch — Meletius,  Paulinus,  and  Vitalis,  all  anti-Arians, 
all  claiming  to  be  in  communion  with  the  Apostolic  See 
of  Rome.  Jerome  did  not  hesitate  to  make  direct  appeal 
to  Pope  Damasus/  who  did  not  reply  to  his  first  letter, 
perhaps  not  to  his  second,  but  who  let  it  be  seen  plainly 
enough  by  his  actions  that  Paulinus  alone  enjoyed  his 
confidence.  The  Meletian  clergy  redoubled  their  impor- 
tunities. Worn  out  with  these  continual  suspicions  as 
to  orthodoxy,  Jerome  made  up  his  mind  to  abandon  the 
desert,  leaving  the  monks  to  their  chains,  their  dirt,  and 
their  claim  to  rule  the  Church  from  the  depths  of  their 
caves.-  At  Antioch,  Paulinus  wished  to  ordain  him 
priest.  He  submitted,  but  with  the  stipulation  that  he 
should  remain  a  monk,  and  be  free  to  go  wherever  he 
might  think  fit.  Shortly  afterwards  (380-381)  he  was  in 
Constantinople,  with  Gregory  of  Nazianzus,  who  was  his 
second  master  in  exegesis,  Gregory  was  a  great  admirer 
of  Origen  ;  Jerome  became  one  also,  under  his  teaching, 
and  set  himself  to  translate  the  works  of  the  celebrated 
Alexandrian.  It  was  at  this  time  also  that  he  translated 
the  Chronicle  of  Eusebius,  completing  it  and  continuing 
it  down  to  the  death  of  Valens.  It  is  surprising  that  he 
never  makes  any  mention  of  the  council  of  381,  which 
took  place  during  his  stay  in  Constantinople.  This 
council,  which  had  repudiated  Paulinus,  and  disgusted 
Gregory  of  Nazianzus,  could  certainly  not  have  enlisted 
his  sympathies  in  any  way.  It  was  in  these  circumstances 
that.  Pope  Damasus  having  obtained  permission  from  the 
emperors  for  the  assembling  of  a  new  council  in  Rome, 
Jerome  once  more  beheld  the  old  metropolis.  Damasus 
knew  him.  In  addition  to  his  letters  from  the  desert, 
he  had  received  from  him  a  little  exegetical  treatise  on 

1  Ep.  15,  16. 

2  Ep.  17:  "Pudet  dicere:  de  cavernis  cellularum  damnamus 
orbem.  In  sacco  et  cinere  volutati,  de  episcopis  sententiam  ferimus. 
Quid  facit  sub  tunica  poenitentis  regius  animus  ?  Catenae,  sordes, 
et  comae  non  sunt  diadematis  signa,  sed  fletus." 


p.  470]  JEROME  AND  DAMASUS  3j81 

the  vision  of  Isaiah.^  The  Pope  had  his  curiosity 
awakened  as  to  the  difficulties  of  Scripture.  No  one 
was  better  qualified  than  Jerome,  steeped  as  he  was  in 
the  knowledge  of  languages  and  the  study  of  interpreters 
ancient  and  modern,  to  give  him  the  necessary  information. 
When  the  Pope  had  Jerome  in  Rome  entirely  at  his  beck 
and  call,  he  began  to  overwhelm  him  with  questions  upon 
the  difficult  points  of  the  Bible  ;  he  encouraged  him,  with 
an  eagerness  that  was  almost  indiscreet,  to  translate 
the  Greek  interpreters ;  he  urged  him  to  revise  or  re- 
write— on  the  basis  of  the  Hebrew  or  Greek  originals — 
the  Latin  version  of  Holy  Scripture.  Jerome  gently 
protested,  but  he  did  it;  and  in  doing  it,  he  enjoyed 
the  purest  pleasure  possible  to  persons  of  his  character — 
that  of  seeing  his  learning  of  some  use.  As  he  was  well 
acquainted  with  the  East,  both  with  regard  to  men  and 
books,  the  Pope  had  recourse  to  him  for  his  correspondence 
with  those  lands.  In  the  whole  life  of  Damasus,  nothing 
makes  him  more  pleasing  to  us  than  this  friendship  with 
Jerome,  and  the  broadness  of  mind  which  it  betokens. 
But  we  must  add  at  once  that  such  favour,  and  for  such  a 
reason,  was  eminently  calculated  to  expose  the  learned 
monk  to  the  jealous  malevolence  of  the  Roman  clergy. 
They  concealed  it  at  first ;  for  Jerome  was  in  favour. 
Compliments  were  paid  him ;  he  was  called  saintly, 
humble,  eloquent ;  he  was  spoken  of  for  the  papal  chair. 
But  this  did  not  last  long.  Objections  were  discovered 
to  his  renderings ;  they  upset  what  had  become  familiar. 
He  was  envied  for  the  success  he  met  with  in  high 
society.  Christian  matrons  of  real  devotion  looked  with 
favour  upon  this  austere  and  learned  man,  who  without 
any  falling  away  in  doctrine  or  in  conduct  guided  them 
with  sincerity  and  dignity  in  the  most  exalted  paths  of 
the  religious  vocation.  Amongst  these  ladies  was 
Marcella,  left  a  widow  when  quite  young,  who  lived  in 
retirement  in  a  palace  on  the  Aventine ;  another  widow, 
Lea ;  a  virgin,  Asella ;  and  lastly,  Paula,  also  a  widow. 
Paula   had    several   children :    one  of  them,  Eustochium, 

'  Ep.  1 8. 


382  POPE  DAMASUS  [cii.  xiii. 

remained  a  virgin,  and  lived  always  with  her  mother ; 
another  daughter,  Blaesilla,  after  a  short  married  life, 
hesitated  for  some  time  between  the  world  and  retirement. 
Jerome  was  the  friend  of  these  holy  women.  He  explained 
the  Scriptures  to  them,  and  encouraged  them  in  their 
pious  exercises.  Could  any  further  reason  be  wanted  ? 
The  worldly  set  was  speedily  hostile  to  him :  the 
fashionable  ladies,  who  even  in  those  far-off  days,  knew 
how  to  reconcile  pleasantly  the  Gospel  and  a  life  of  amuse- 
ment ;  the  curled  and  scented  ecclesiastics  who  were 
attached  to  their  society,  who  flocked  to  their  petits 
levers,  were  the  eager  recipients  of  their  presents,  and 
lived  in  expectation  of  their  property ;  in  short,  "  the 
whole  council  of  the  Pharisees"  was  all  agog.  We  must, 
however,  confess,  that  it  was  not  only  Jerome's  virtues 
which  so  exasperated  them.  He  had  his  faults  also,  and 
very  patent  ones,  amongst  others  an  extreme  irritability, 
which  made  him  intolerant  of  the  slightest  criticism,  and 
led  him  into  extreme  violence  of  language.  The  blows 
which  were  struck  at  him,  he  returned  with  enormous 
interest.  He  fought  with  words,  as  well  as  with  his  pen, 
allowing  himself  to  be  drawn  into  disputes,  in  which  the 
parties  grew  so  warm  that  they  ended  by  spitting  into 
each  other's  faces.^  Marcella  was  frightened  sometimes  : 
such  proceedings  offended  her  dignity.  Paula,  on  the 
contrary,  never  made  any  objections ;  she  was  a  model 
sheep.  Nothing  alarmed  her.  One  day,  Jerome  addressed 
to  her  daughter  Eustochium  a  treatise  on  virginity, 
marked  by  an  extraordinary  freedom  of  style.^  Other 
mothers  were  scandalized  at  it ;  Paula  approved 
of    everything,   and    allowed    herself    to    be    called    the 

'  It  is  Jerome  himself  who  gives  us  this  piece  of  information 
{Ep.  1.  4) :  Quoties  me  iste  (he  is  speaking  of  another  monk)  in 
circuits  stomachari  fecit  et  addiixit  ad  choleram  !  Quoties  conspuit  et 
consputus  abscessit ! 

-  Ep.  22  ;  see  especially  c.  25.  Omnia  munda  mundis ;  but  we 
are  astonished  at  some  of  the  language  which  this  holy  man  uses  to 
a  young  girl  of  eighteen.  The  pagans,  as  we  may  well  believe,  read 
these  pamphlets  with  zest,  and  were  highly  amused  by  them. 


p.  482]  INSCRIPTIONS  OF  DAMASUS  383 

"  mother-in-law  of  God,"  since  her  daughter  was,  by  her 
vow,  "  the  spouse  of  Christ." 

It  was  during  this  period  also  that  Jerome  wrote  his 
dialogue  against  the  Luciferians,  in  which  he  makes  a 
formal  indictment  against  the  Little  Church,  founded  more 
or  less  intentionally  by  the  celebrated  Bishop  of  Sardinia. 
He  also  attacked  a  certain  Helvidius  who,  as  a  protest 
against  the  attraction  of  vocations  to  virginity,  had  set 
himself  to  prove  that  Mary,  the  Mother  of  the  Lord,  had 
had  other  children  afterwards  by  her  marriage  with 
Joseph.  It  cost  him  dear,  for  Jerome,  thus  attacked  on 
a  tender  spot,  made  him  atone  very  severely  for  his  hasty 
exegesis. 

So  long  as  Pope  Damasus  lived,  Jerome  was  able  to 
labour,  to  teach,  and  to  fight,  as  he  pleased.  But  he  had 
only  lived  three  years  in  Rome  when  his  protector,  who 
had  attained  a  very  advanced  age,  passed  from  life  to 
life  beyond  (December  ii,  384). 

Pope  Damasus  is  very  popular  with  the  archaeologists 
of  our  own  days,  on  account  of  the  beautiful  inscriptions 
with  which  he  adorned  the  tombs  of  the  Roman  martyrs. 
Pilgrims,  at  the  beginning  of  the  Middle  Ages,  copied 
them  eagerly ;  several  of  them  have  been  preserved 
entire ;  others  are  found  in  fragments  in  the  excavations 
of  the  catacombs.  Everyone  knows  their  admirable 
caligraphy.  Never  have  worse  verses  been  transcribed 
so  exquisitely.  And  if  the  verses  were  only  bad  !  But 
they  are  empty  of  history,  they  are  obscure,  and  contain 
scarcely  anything  but  commonplaces.  Thus,  they  bear 
witness  that  the  local  tradition  with  regard  to  the  martyrs 
was  almost  obliterated  at  the  time  when  the  pious  pontiff 
sought  to  preserve  it.  Nevertheless,  his  intention  deserves 
praise.  Stoutly  opposed  as  he  was,  and  bitterly  assailed 
by  persons  who  prided  themselves  on  their  superior  zeal, 
Damasus  felt  the  necessity  of  conciliating  the  feeling  of 
the  common  people.  Now  the  populace  was  beginning 
to  take  more  and  more  interest  in  the  heroes  of  ancient 
days.  To  recover  their  true  history  would  have  been 
almost  impossible.     And  besides,  it  had  been  almost  always 


384  POPE  DAMASUS  [ch.  xiii. 

the  same.  But  the  ecclesiastical  authorities  were  in  a 
position  to  know  where  the  martyrs  had  been  buried ;  it 
was  their  duty  to  guide  in  the  direction  of  the  authentic 
tombs  a  pious  enthusiasm  which  might  have  wandered 
elsewhere ;  and  by  associating  themselves  closely  with 
it,  they  maintained  an  indispensable  communion  of  feeling 
between  themselves  and  the  generality  of  the  faithful. 

On  the  death  of  Damasus,  a  former  deacon  of  Liberius, 
named  Siricius,  was  chosen  as  his  successor.  This  new 
Pharaoh  had  not  known  Joseph,  or  rather  was  not  at  all 
inclined  to  be  friendly  to  him.  Jerome  soon  saw  that  to 
stay  in  Rome  would  become  difficult  for  him.  In  the 
meantime,  Blaesilla,  after  some  months  as  a  fashionable 
widow,  had  been  induced  by  him  to  embrace,  as  her 
mother  and  sister  had  done,  a  life  of  retreat  and  privation. 
She  only  lived  four  months  afterwards.  Her  "  conversion  " 
had  already  been  a  shock  to  her  worldly  friends ;  her 
death  was  a  desolation.  Society  was  furious  against  the 
monks.  It  was  then  that  Jerome  experienced  a  revival  of 
the  former  attraction  of  the  Holy  Places,  which  twelve 
years  before  had  carried  him  from  Aquileia  to  Antioch, 
but  without  inducing  him  to  complete  the  journey. 
Paula  also  had  wished,  for  many  years,  to  follow  the 
example  of  Melania,  and  to  visit  the  monks  of  Egypt 
and  the  sanctuaries  of  Palestine ;  she  told  Jerome  that 
she  would  follow  him.  Jerome  sailed  first ;  Paula  and 
Eustochium  followed  in  another  ship.  In  Cyprus  they 
met  once  more  Bishop  Epiphanius,  and  at  Antioch 
Paulinus,  two  friends  dating  from  the  last  council.  It  was 
at  Antioch  that  they  made  their  preparations,  under  the 
guidance  of  Paulinus,  for  the  journey  to  the  Holy  Places. 


CHAPTER  XIV 

THE   MONKS   OF   THE   EAST 

Egypt,  the  fatherland  of  the  monks.  Antony  and  the  Anchorites. 
The  monks  of  Nitria.  Pacomius  and  Cenobitism.  Schnoudi. 
Monastic  virtues.  Pilgrimages  to  the  Egyptian  solitaries.  The 
monks  of  Palestine :  Hilarion  and  Epiphanius.  Sinai  and 
Jerusalem.  Monks  of  Syria  and  of  Mesopotamia.  Monasticism 
in  Asia  Minor :  Eustathius  and  St  Basil.  Attitude  of  the 
Church  and  of  the  Government. 

The  heresy  of  Arius,  the  schism  of  Meletius,  the  long 
conflicts  and  the  fidelity  of  Athanasius,  make  Egypt 
stand  out  in  special  relief  in  the  Christian  history  of  the 
4th  century.  The  great  Councils  of  Nicsea,  of  Tyre,  of 
Sardica,  and  of  Ariminum  ;  the  Church  torn  by  divisions, 
bishops  deposed,  exiled,  and  hunted  down  by  the  police 
of  the  Most  Christian  Emperor;  the  Faith  betrayed  by 
creeds ;  religion  perverted  amid  inexpiable  strife ;  all 
these  calamities  took  their  origin  in  the  land  of  the  Nile. 
And  yet,  Egypt  was  not  a  byeword  and  a  scandal ;  in 
spite  of  all  the  difficulties  which  he  caused,  Athanasius  by 
reason  of  his  lofty  and  unruffled  virtue,  above  all  by  his 
indomitable  courage,  ever  remained  the  object  of  universal 
admiration.  All  respectable  people  flocked  round  him  by 
instinct.  It  was  well  known  that  he  did  not  stand  alone  ; 
that  all  the  bishops,  all  the  faithful  of  Egypt  supported 
him  by  their  devotion,  and  that  this  devotion  cost  them 
dear ;  that  they  had  paid  for  it  by  persecutions  incessantly 
renewed,  from  the  time  of  Constantine  to  the  end  of  the 
reign  of  Valens.  Egypt  was  the  sanctuary  of  orthodoxy, 
the  classic  ground  of  confessors  of  the  faith. 

11  385  2  B 


386  THE  MONKS  OF  THE  EAST         [ch.  xiv. 

But  it  had  another  title  to  respect :  it  was  the  father- 
land of  the  monks.  To  the  revered  name  of  Athanasius 
were  united  in  pious  stories  the  names  of  Antony  and 
Pacomius,  of  Ammon,  of  the  two  Macarii,  and  those  of 
many  other  personages  in  whom  piety  soon  embodied 
the  ideal  of  Christian  heroism.  The  country  in  which 
these  holy  men  lived,  and  where  the  institutions  which 
sprang  from  them  flourished,  soon  became  a  second  Holy 
Land.  Pilgrimages  were  made  there,  not  to  visit 
celebrated  tombs,  or  places  which  bore  witness  to  the 
great  facts  of  Bible  history,  but  to  venerate  living  saints, 
to  gaze  upon  their  faces  emaciated  by  austerity,  and  to 
listen  to  their  edifying  conversation.  In  the  year  373,  a 
great  Roman  lady,  Melania  the  elder,  inaugurated  in  this 
respect  the  series  of  Western  pilgrims.  But  long  before 
this,  Hilarion,  Eustathius,  and  Basil  had  travelled 
thither  from  Palestine  and  Asia  Minor.  As  a  result  of 
these  journeys,  the  renown  of  the  Egyptian  monks  was 
spread  abroad  ;  their  example  encouraged  imitation,  their 
way  of  living  inspired  the  reforms  which  were  already 
beginning  to  influence  the  old  form  of  asceticism,  more  or 
less  everywhere. 

Indeed,  there  were  almost  everywhere  Christian  ascetics  ; 
there  had  been  so  from  the  outset.  I  have  already  said 
that  asceticism  is  not  a  peculiarity  of  Christianity  ;  it 
existed  before  it,  and  apart  from  it,  among  certain  religious 
or  philosophical  sects  ^ ;  and  the  Church  has  never  accepted 
it  as  an  essential  and  obligatory  form  of  the  Christian 
life ;  she  has  always  shown  herself  mistrustful  of  it  when 
there  was  the  slightest  reason  for  suspicion  that  austere 
practices    were    connected    with    unorthodox    doctrines.^ 

1  The  Therapeuts  of  Philo,  if  the  book  "  On  the  Contemplative 
Life"  is  really  his,  were  Jewish  ascetics,  living  in  communities.  Some 
thirty  years  ago,  an  attempt  was  made  to  connect  all  Egyptian  forms 
of  monasticism  with  certain  cases  of  voluntary  seclusion  from  the 
world  which  are  known  in  the  worship  of  Serapis.  This  absurd  idea 
had  some  success  at  first ;  no  one  maintains  it  now. 

2  An  instance  of  this  kind  was  represented  in  Egypt  by  the 
asceticism  of  Hieracas  of  Leontopolis,  who,  about  the  beginning  of 
the    4th    century,   founded    a    sect    into    which    no    one   could  be 


p.  4B7]  THE  MONKS  OF  EGYPT  387 

Far  from  condemning  such  practices,  however,  in  them- 
selves, she  has  considered  them  as  meritorious,  edifying, 
and  worthy  of  honour.  In  the  3rd  century  there  were 
many  ascetics  of  either  sex  living  in  their  families,  or  at 
least  in  ordinary  society,  and  having  no  idea  of  separating 
themselves  from  it  in  order  to  lead  a  life  of  isolation. 
Here  and  there,  they  did  group  themselves  together, 
either  for  religious  exercises,  or  for  a  community  Hfe.^  In 
Egypt,  as  elsewhere,  there  were  both  men  and  women 
who  embraced  a  life  of  celibacy,  "  apotaktikoi "  as  they 
were  sometimes  called ;  they  are  often  mentioned, 
especially  the  virgins,  in  the  stories  of  martyrs,  and  the 
accounts  of  religious  disturbances.  They  dwelt  in  towns 
and  villages,  sometimes  in  the  suburbs,  in  some  quiet 
place,  where  they  lived  alone ;  but  they  took  part  in  the 
ordinary  religious  life  and  especially  in  meetings  for  public 
worship,  where  they  showed  themselves  more  regular  than 
others. 

The  first  person  -  who  conceived  the  idea  of  isolating 
himself  entirely,  of  fleeing  from  the  inhabited  world  and 

admitted  unless  he  renounced  marriage,  and  adopted  a  vegetarian 
diet.  According  to  his  teaching,  marriage,  which  was  permitted  in 
the  Old  Testament,  is  forbidden  in  the  New,  because  the  teaching  of 
the  New  Testament  must  be  higher  than  that  of  the  Old.  Hieracas 
was  a  very  learned  man,  well  acquainted  with  Egyptian  and  Greek 
literature.  He  had  also  cultivated  medicine,  astronomy,  and  other 
sciences.  In  theology,  he  depended  in  some  respects  upon  Origen, 
in  rejecting  the  Resurrection.  Children  according  to  him  could 
not  be  saved.  He  had  strange  ideas  with  regard  to  the  Trinity  : 
he  identified  Melchizedec  with  the  Holy  Spirit.  Arius  quotes  a  pro- 
position of  his  which  would  seem  somewhat  akin  to  Modalism  (letter 
to  Alexander,  Epiph.  Haer.  Ixix.  7).  St  Epiphanius,  who  gives  us 
information  {Haer.  Ixviii.)  upon  the  heresy  of  Hieracas.  was  acquainted 
with  commentaries  by  him  upon  the  six  days  of  Creation  and  on 
other  parts  of  the  Bible.  He  also  composed  many  sacred  poems  in 
Greek  and  Egyptian.  He  died  at  the  age  of  ninety,  still  exercising 
his  profession  as  caligraphist. 

^  Such  was  the  napOeviJjv  in  which  St  Antony  placed  his  sister 
(Athan.  Vt'ta  Ant.  3). 

^  I  pass  over  St  Paul  of  Thebes,  who,  according  to  St  Jerome, 
must  have  fled  to  the  desert  in  the  time  of  the  Emperor  Decius. 
This  story  is  not  very  well  established. 


388  THE  MONKS  OF  THE  EAST         [CH.  xiv. 

even  from  the  ordinary  society  of  the  faithful,  was 
St  Antony.^ 

He  was  born  in  251  in  a  village  of  the  nome  of 
Heracleopolis,  in  Middle  Egypt.  His  parents  were  not 
poor.  From  his  earliest  childhood  he  showed  a  great 
aversion  to  intercourse  with  his  fellows ;  he  could  never 
be  persuaded  to  go  to  school ;  and  hence  he  remained 
all  his  life  an  unlettered  man,  not  understanding  Greek, 
and  not  knowing  how  to  read  even  in  Coptic.  On  the 
death  of  his  parents  (about  270)  he  sold  his  property, 
placed  a  sister  who  remained  to  him  and  who  was  younger 
than  himself  in  a  house  of  consecrated  virgins  (ei? 
-TrapOevoom),  and  began  to  live  as  an  ascetic,  first  at  the 
door  of  his  own  house,  afterwards  in  the  outskirts  of 
the  village,  and  finally  in  a  tomb  at  a  great  distance 
from  it.  Fifteen  years  passed  away,  during  which  time, 
although  preferring  the  intercourse  with  hermits  in  the 
neighbourhood  or  those  passing  by,  he  yet  kept  in  touch 
with  the  people  of  his  village.  But  in  285,  yielding  to 
the  attraction  of  a  more  complete  solitude,  he  crossed 
the  Nile  and  directed  his  steps  towards  the  mountains 
on  the  right  bank  (the  Arabian  chain),  where,  in  the 
heart  of  a  terrible  desert,  he  discovered  the  ruins  of  a 
fortified  castle.  A  spring  of  water  gushed  near.  The 
name  of  the  place  was  Pispir^;  and  there  he  took  up 
his  abode.  Every  six  months  his  provision  of  bread 
was  brought  to  him.  He  passed  his  time  in  prayer  or  in 
making  mats.  Separated  from  men  he  lived  with  God,  and 
also  with  demons  whose  assaults  hold  a  prominent  place 
in  his  history. 

After  twenty  years  of  solitude,  Antony  found  himself 

^  After  a  great  deal  of  dispute  as  to  the  authenticity  of  the  life  of 
St  Antony,  critics  have  ended  by  accepting  it  once  more.  And  it 
is  upon  that  document  that  the  account  which  follows  is  based.  As 
to  the  other  testimonies  to  St  Antony,  see  Dom  E.  C.  Butler,  ne 
Lausiac  History  of  Palladius^  i.  p.  220,  in  the  Cambridge  Texts  and 
Studies,  vol.  vi. 

2  Der-el-Meimoun,  on  the  right  bank  of  the  Nile,  between  Atfih 
and  Beni-Souef  (Amelineau,  G^og.  de  PEgypte,  p.  353  ;  cf.  Anecd. 
Oxon.,  Semitic  series,  part  vii.  map). 


p.  489]  ST  ANTONY  389 

one  day  besieged  in  his  fortress ;  his  door  was  forced ; 
they  were  disciples  who  came  to  him  and  thus  vanquished 
their  master.  His  example  had  been  contagious.  Many 
Christians,  abandoning  family,  country,  and  Church,  and 
flying  also  from  judges  and  tax  collectors,^  now  populated 
the  desert  of  Pispir  and  the  neighbouring  mountains. 
Antony  gave  them  a  welcome  and  plenty  of  good  advice. 

This  happened  at  the  time  of  the  Great  Persecution. 
The  solitaries  were  too  far  off  to  be  affected  by  it.  They 
went  to  meet  it :  in  the  reign  of  Maximin,  Antony 
went  down  to  Alexandria  with  several  of  his  disciples, 
and  busied  himself  in  serving  and  encouraging  the 
confessors.  This  journey  did  not  fail  to  increase  his 
fame.  He  soon  found  that  there  were  too  many  monks 
at  Pispir,  and  certainly  too  many  visitors.  A  caravan 
of  Bedouin  Arabs  passed  by,  going  in  the  direction  of 
the  Red  Sea :  he  joined  them.  After  a  journey  of 
several  days  he  discovered  in  the  mountains  near  the 
seashore  a  spot  which  possessed  water,  palm-trees,  and 
a  small  tract  of  land  which  could  be  cultivated.  This 
was  his  second  and  last  refuge.'  To  go  and  look  for 
him  in  such  a  place,  it  was  necessary  to  undergo  more 
than  ordinary  fatigue.  And  so  he  was  left  there  in  peace. 
Sometimes,  however,  he  descended  towards  the  Nile 
valley  and  went  to  spend  a  few  days  at  Pispir. 

He  lived  to  a  very  great  age ;  he  did  not  die  until  356, 
at  the  age  of  a  hundred  and  five.  When  he  was  almost 
ninety  he  took  a  second  journey  to  Alexandria,  in  338,^  to 
greet  Athanasius  on  his  return  from  his  first  exile  and  to 
lend  him  aid  against  the  Arians.  They  were  old  acquaint- 
ances. Athanasius  had  been  for  some  time  Antony's 
disciple,  and  afterwards  they  had  met  again  several  times. 
In  the  ecclesiastical  quarrels  which  tore  Egypt  asunder,  the 
great  solitary  had  always  taken  the  part  of  his  friend  : 
neither   Arians   nor    Meletians   had    ever    been   able    to 

^   Vita  Ant.  44, 

-  This  is  the  monastery  of  St  Antony,  still  in  existence,  as  is  also 
that  of  St  Paul  at  some  distance  from  it, 

"  This  date  is  supplied  by  the  Chronicle  of  the  Festal  Letters. 


390  THE  MONKS  OF  THE  EAST         [ch.  xiv. 

detach  him  from  his  side.  When  Antony  died,  he  showed 
a  last  mark  of  regard  for  Athanasius  and  bequeathed  to 
him,  besides  an  old  tunic  of  sheepskin,  the  well-worn 
mantle  which  had  long  served  him  for  a  bed,  and  which 
had  been  in  the  first  instance  Athanasius'  own  gift. 
Serapion,  Bishop  of  Thmuis,  also  received  a  remembrance 
of  the  same  kind. 

These  relics  were  a  symbol  of  the  perfect  and  cordial 
agreement  which  existed  between  the  heads  of  the 
Egyptian  Church  and  the  patriarch  of  the  anchorites. 
Neither  of  them  seems  to  have  realized  that  these  flights 
to  the  desert  might  have  had  some  drawbacks.  Yet, 
when  we  look  closely  into  the  matter,  the  hermit  was 
a  living  criticism  of  ecclesiastical  society.  The  mere  fact 
of  his  retirement  proved  that  in  his  estimation  the  Church 
had  become  an  impossible  dwelling-place  for  anyone 
who  wished  to  lead  a  really  Christian  life,  and  this  judg- 
ment was  founded  upon  an  ideal  of  religious  life  which 
differed  markedly  from  that  of  the  Church.  For  him  the 
very  essential  of  Christianity  was  asceticism.  Fraternal 
union,  meetings  for  public  worship,  the  liturgy,  and 
instruction  from  the  bishop,  all  these  things  were  of 
secondary  importance  in  comparison  with  that  cultivation 
of  the  soul  which  consists  above  all  in  personal  mortifica- 
tion and  continual  prayer.  We  cannot  see  how  Antony, 
during  his  twenty  years  of  seclusion,  can  ever  have  been 
enabled  to  receive  the  Eucharist. 

Such  a  mode  of  life  would  have  astonished  St  Ignatius 
of  Antioch  and  St  Clement  of  Rome.  Even  in  the  4th 
century  the  exodus  to  monasticism  alarmed  in  more 
places  than  one  the  representatives  of  tradition.  The 
Bishops  of  Alexandria,  Peter,  Alexander,  and  Athanasius, 
were  not  disturbed  by  it ;  they  even  looked  with  favour 
upon  this  new  form  of  piety,  which  preached  so  eloquently 
to  the  general  run  of  lukewarm  Christians.  The  ecclesi- 
astical danger  could  be  guarded  against  by  keeping  the 
hermits  under  the  direction  of  episcopal  authority.  This 
was  a  matter  of  organization.  Those  recluses  who  were 
out  of  reach  were,  and  could  only  be,  exceptions  to  the 


p.  492]  THE  MONKS  OF  NITRIA  391 

rule.  The  general  body  of  hermits  were  not  too  much 
scattered ;  each  of  them  had  his  hut  or  his  cave,  his  cell 
as  it  was  called,  but  they  were  not  very  far  from  one 
another.  It  was  easy  to  arrange  a  spiritual  centre  for 
them — a  church — round  which  they  organized  themselves 
into  a  sort  of  country  parish. 

Thus  in  Egypt  there  was  no  difficulty  about  the 
matter :  bishops  and  monks  arranged  things  between 
themselves,  and  the  new  kind  of  life  soon  became  very 
popular.  As  early  as  the  reign  of  Constantine,  there 
were  monks  throughout  the  whole  of  Egypt.  One  of 
their  most  celebrated  colonies  was  that  of  Nitria.  To  the 
west  of  the  Delta,  at  a  considerable  distance  south  of 
Alexandria,  a  large  valley  opens  out  from  the  north-west 
to  the  south-east,  at  the  bottom  of  which  are  salt  lakes 
which  produce  nitre.  It  is  a  very  melancholy  place, 
and  its  name  in  our  day  is  Wadi-Natroun,  the  Valley 
of  Nitre.  Here,  about  the  time  of  the  Council  of  Nicsea, 
a  certain  Amoun  ^  came  to  lead  the  life  of  an  ascetic. 
He  had  left  behind  him  in  Egypt  a  wife  with  whom  he 
had  lived  for  eighteen  years  in  a  celibate  union.  His 
wife  collected  virgins  around  her ;  while  Amoun  on 
his  part  soon  saw  solitaries  flocking  to  his  retreat 
in  Nitria.  Twice  a  year  the  husband  and  wife  visited 
each  other.  When  Amoun  died,  St  Antony,  who  was 
still  alive,  saw  the  angels  descend  from  heaven  and  receive 
his  soul.  His  spiritual  posterity  soon  increased  to  con- 
siderable proportions :  forty  years  after  his  death  there 
were  more  than  five  thousand  monks  in  the  grim  valley 
of  Nitria.  Like  Antony's  hermits,  each  lived  in  a  separate 
cell  ;  in  the  middle  of  the  valley  rose  a  church  where 
they  all  assembled  on  Saturday  and  Sunday ;  eight 
priests,  who  owed  obedience  to  the  Bishop  of  Hermopolis 
Minor,  were  attached  to  this  church.  It  was  the  centre 
of  government  and  discipline.     Three  palm  trees  shaded 

^  Historia  Lausiaca,  8.  This  work  is  always  quoted  here  accord- 
ing to  Dom  Butler's  edition.  See  below,  p.  402  (note).  But 
I  put  in  parentheses  the  numbers  of  the  chapters  in  the  old  editions 
when  they  differ  from  the  new  numbers. 


392  THE  MONKS  OF  THE  EAST         [ch.  xiv. 

the  court  of  the  church ;  to  each  of  them  was  attached 
a  whip,  which  was  made  use  of  to  chastise  the  evil  doings 
of  offenders  from  outside  or,  if  there  were  need,  of  the 
solitaries  themselves.  With  the  exception  of  their  weekly 
meetings,  the  monks  passed  their  time  as  they  liked 
in  their  cells,  working  for  their  living  at  basket-work, 
sometimes  two  together,  sometimes  three  together, 
often  alone.  Morning  and  evening  there  sounded 
from  one  end  of  the  valley  to  the  other  the  chant- 
ing of  psalms.  Beyond  the  Wadi-Natroun  stretched  a 
still  more  frightful  desert,  that  of  the  Cells  where  the 
more  courageous  had  made  their  retreat.  Farther  still, 
the  solitude  of  Scetis,  a  country  of  sand  and  of 
hunger,  received  the  most  renowned  connoisseurs  of 
Nitrian  asceticism. 

For  there  was  a  certain  connoisseurship,  a  virtuosite  in 
asceticism,  an  open  rivalry  between  the  monks,  not  only  of 
this  district  but  throughout  the  whole  of  Egypt.  Pambo, 
Or,  Nathanael,  Benjamin,  Macarius  of  Egypt  and  Macarius 
of  Alexandria,  appear  in  the  number  of  Nitrian  celebrities. 
Macarius  of  Alexandria  could  never  hear  of  any  feat  of 
asceticism  without  at  once  trying  to  surpass  it.  The 
monks  of  Tabenna  ate  no  cooked  food  during  Lent ; 
Macarius  thought  fit  to  observe  this  rule  for  seven  years, 
from  one  end  of  the  year  to  another.  He  was  to  be  seen 
frantically  endeavouring  for  twenty  consecutive  nights  to 
keep  himself  awake.  He  was  already  an  old  man  when 
he  conceived  the  idea  of  visiting  Tabenna  itself,  to  give 
a  lesson  to  those  famous  ascetics,  who  spent  their  nights 
standing  upright,  and  during  Lent  only  ate  once  in  every 
five  days.  He  presented  himself,  disguised,  at  the  door  of 
a  monastery  and,  when  Lent  came,  passed  the  whole 
of  it  standing  upright,  without  even  bending  his  knees 
either  by  day  or  night,  without  drinking  and  even  without 
eating,  except  that  on  Sundays  he  swallowed,  quite 
uncooked,  a  few  cabbage  leaves.  During  the  whole  of  this 
fast  he  continued  to  work  with  his  hands  at  the  trade  of 
basket-making,  and  when  he  was  not  working,  he  prayed. 
The  monks  of  Tabenna  rose  in  revolt  against  this  formid- 


p.  495]  LIFE  IN  THE  DESERT  393 

able  rival,  but  their  superior  thanked  him  for  having 
humbled  the  pride  of  his  disciples.^ 

It  was  not  always  the  mere  attraction  to  asceticism 
which  drove  men  into  the  desert.  Some  came  there  to  do 
penance.  In  Nitria,  a  certain  negro  called  Moses  was  long 
spoken  of;  he  had  formerly  been  a  slave  whom  no  one 
would  put  up  with  and,  being  driven  away  by  his  masters 
for  that  reason,  he  then  became  a  brigand-chief.  In  this 
latter  capacity  he  acquired  a  terrible  reputation.  At  last 
he  decided  to  change  his  life,  and  took  possession  of  a  cell 
in  the  holy  valley.  One  night  he  was  attacked  there  by 
four  robbers.  They  had  come  to  the  wrong  man  :  the 
recluse  had  not  lost  his  former  vigour ;  he  knocked 
his  assailants  down,  tied  them  up,  took  all  the  four 
upon  his  broad  shoulders,  and  went  like  this  to  the 
church,  asking  what  he  should  do  with  them.  During 
the  explanations  which  followed,  the  name  of  Moses 
was  pronounced.  Moses  for  the  brigands  was  the  great 
celebrity  of  their  profession.  Without  hesitation  they 
too  became  monks.'^ 

In  those  days,  the  desert  was  supposed  to  be  full  of 
demons.  The  hermits,  notwithstanding  their  austerities, 
often  experienced  attacks  from  them.  We  have  already 
seen  what  a  place  is  filled  in  the  life  of  St  Antony  by  the 
struggle  against  the  temptations  of  evil  spirits.  In  Nitria, 
in  the  same  way,  the  monks  complained  of  them  greatly ; 
the  demon  of  avarice  prowled  round  the  alms  some- 
times left  by  well-to-do  pilgrims ;  but  it  was  especially 
the  demon  of  the  flesh  which  came  to  trouble  the  nights 
of  the  ascetics.  They  fought  it  as  best  they  could, 
sometimes  by  means  scarcely  sane.  One  of  them,  Pachon, 
thought  he  would  seek  to  be  devoured  by  wild  beasts.  So 
he  sat  down  at  the  entrance  to  a  cave  which  he  knew  to 
be  inhabited  by  hyenas.  At  night-fall,  these  animals 
really  did  come  out,  and  smelt  him  for  a  long  time;  but 
they  went  away  without  doing  him  any  harm.  Another 
day,  he  applied  a  serpent  of  a  venomous  kind  to  his 
stomach  ;  but  he  was  not  bitten.^ 

^  Hist.  Lnus.  i8  (19-20).  -  Ibid.  19  (22).  ^  Ibid.  23  (29) 


394  THE  MONKS  OF  THE  EAST         [cii.  xiv. 

The  disciples  of  St  Antony,  the  monks  of  Nitria,  and  of 
many  other  places  in  Lower  or  Middle  Egypt,  were  not, 
strictly  speaking,  subject  to  any  rule  or  any  superior.  The 
priests  who  served  their  churches  had  only  liturgical 
functions :  they  were  not  monastic  superiors.  The  whip 
which  hung  from  the  palm-tree,  near  the  Church  of  Nitria, 
was  merely  an  instrument  of  general  government,  in  no 
way  a  symbol  of  conventual  discipline.  New-comers 
attached  themselves  to  some  experienced  hermit,  who 
guided  their  first  steps  in  the  ascetic  career ;  afterwards, 
they  arranged  themselves  how  they  liked,  sanctifying 
themselves  according  to  the  received  methods,  and 
perfecting  these  according  to  their  taste. 

Such  independence  made  access  to  the  desert-life  easy 
for  persons  of  every  variety  of  culture  and  condition. 
Among  the  monks  of  Nitria  were  men  of  the  world,  former 
members  of  the  clergy,  people  of  high  and  distinguished 
education.  In  certain  cells  were  to  be  found  not  only 
copies  of  the  Sacred  Books,  beautifully  transcribed  by  the 
solitaries  themselves,^  but  the  works  of  the  ancient  doctors 
— of  Clement  of  Alexandria,-  and  above  all  of  Origen, 
who  although  he  was  not  regarded  with  favour,  it  is  true,  in 
Pacomian  monasteries,^  preserved  elsewhere  many  faithful 
adherents.  These  later  on,  under  the  patriarch  Theophilus, 
had  to  endure  evil  times. 

Far  away  from  Nitria,  and  even  from  Pispir,  in  the 
heart  of  Upper  Egypt,  there  sprang  up  about  the  time  of 
Licinius  another  efflorescence  of  monasticism,  which  finally 
developed  in  institutions  widely  different  from  the  primitive 
form  of  hermit  life.  A  young  peasant  named  Pacomius, 
(UaxovfJiioi)  who  had  been  called  up  for  military  service 
and  disbanded  shortly  afterwards  (314),  had  occasion, 
during  his  short  stay  in  the  army,  to  experience  the 
charity  of  the  Christians.     His  family  were  pagans,  and 

1  It  is  highly  probable  that  the  fine  MS.  H  of  the  Epistles  of  St 
Paul,  of  which  we  still  possess  some  fragments,  was  the  work  of 
Evagrius  of  Nitria.  Upon  this,  see  A.  Ehrhard,  Centralblatt  fiir 
Bibliothekswesen,  1891,  p.  385,  and  Armitage  Robinson  in  the 
Historia  Lausiaca  of  Dom  Butler,  vol.  i.,  pp.  103-106. 

-  Palladius,  Hist.  Laus.  60.  ^  Life  of  Pacomius,  c.  21. 


p.  497-8]  ST  PACOMIUS  395 

lived  in  the  neighbourhood  of  Esneh  (Latopolis),  to  the 
south  of  Thebes.  He  never  saw  them  again.  As  soon  as 
he  was  free  from  the  army  he  asked  for  baptism,  and  then 
devoted  himself  to  asceticism  under  the  direction  of  a 
solitary  named  Palaemon,  who  had  his  hermit's  cell  upon 
the  right  bank  of  the  Nile,  opposite  Denderah.  Soon  he 
felt  himself  drawn  to  gather  other  ascetics  round  him, 
and  to  lead  with  them  a  life  in  community.  He  was  the 
inventor  ^  of  what  we  wrongly  call  the  monasteries,-  and  of 
the  cenobitic  life.  The  first  monastery  was  founded  at  a 
place  called  Tabennesis. 

Disciples  flocked  there  in  hundreds ;  whole  groups  of 
hermits — this  form  of  asceticism  was  very  widespread  in 
that  district — placed  themselves  under  the  discipline  of  the 
new  master.  A  second  monastery  was  organized,  at  an 
hour's  distance  from  the  first,  at  a  place  called  Peboou 
{Ua^aO,  now  Faou) ;  but  that  soon  proved  insufficient. 
Other  monasteries  were  built,  either  in  the  neighbourhood, 
or  a  little  lower  down  or  higher  up  the  river,  in  the  out- 
skirts of  Achmin  (Panopolis)  and  Esneh  (Latopolis).  In 
the  lifetime  of  Pacomius  there  were  at  least  nine  of 
them.  These  monasteries  were  not  independent  of  each 
other ;  they  formed  what  we  should  now  call  an  Order,  a 
Congregation.  All  of  them  followed  the  same  mode  of 
life,  were  subject  to  the  same  rule,  to  the  same  temporal 
administration,  and  obeyed  the  same  superior.  The 
superior,  after  having  at  first  resided  at  Tabennesis,  soon 
fixed  the  seat  of  his  government  at  Peboou. 

Each  of  the  monasteries  comprised  a  closed  area,  in 
which  were  built  several  houses,  each  sheltering  some 
forty  monks,  grouped  according  to  the  nature  of  their 
manual  labour.^ 

^  An  attempt  of  this  kind  had  been  made  before  him,  but  without 
success,  by  a  certain  Aotas  ( Vifa  Pachotnii,  jj). 

"  '^lovaar-qpiov  means  properly  a  place  where  one  lives  alone  ;  this  is 
exactly  the  contrary  of  the  usually  received  meaning  ;  Kot:'6/3to^,  of 
which  we  have  no  literal  equivalent  in  French,  means  a  place  where 
men  live  in  common  ;  this  is  the  correct  term,  but  it  is  Greek. 

^  Upon  the  documents  relating  to  St  Pacomius  and  his 
monasteries,    see    Ladeuze,    Etude  sur    le    ccnobitlsine    Pakhomien 


396  THE  MONKS  OF  THE  EAST         [ch.  xiv. 

Their  Rule,  which  we  still  possess,  was  comparatively 
endurable.  The  Pacomian  monks  worked  with  their 
hands,  and  even  with  their  heads,  for  they  were  obliged 
to  learn  by  heart  at  least  the  Psalter  and  the  New 
Testament.  They  were  allowed  to  feed  themselves  as 
they  liked,  that  is  to  say,  to  eat  more  or  less  often,  though 
of  course  of  fare  which  had  small  claim  to  be  called 
delicate ;  those  who  fasted  more,  worked  less.  While 
eating,  they  covered  their  heads  with  their  hoods ;  in  this 
way  they  disguised  an  operation  which  apparently  seemed 
to  them  unbecoming,  or,  at  any  rate,  kept  to  themselves  the 
secret  of  the  privations  which  they  voluntarily  endured. 
Pacomius  was  soon  joined  by  his  sister,  who,  on  her 
brother's  advice,  established  for  her  part  monasteries  for 
women. 

Pacomius   had    many   visions,   of   which    the   monks, 

pendant  le  IVe  siecle  et  la  premiere  nioitie  dii  V^.  The  best 
biographical  document  is  the  Greek  Life,  pubhshed  (shockingly : 
this  work  ought  to  be  done  again)  by  the  Bollandists  i^Acta  SS.  maii, 
vol.  iii.,  p.  22  *  ei  seq.) ;  it  has  been  supplemented  and  retouched, 
subsequently,  in  Coptic  as  well  as  in  Greek  (Boll.  loc.  ciL,  pp. 
44  *-53  *>  and  54  *-6i  *  [letter  of  Ammon  to  Theophilus] ).  The  other 
accounts  {Hist  tnofi.  3;  Hist.  Laus.  32-34;  cf.  7,  18;  Sozomen,  iii. 
14  ;  vi.  28)  are  only  of  minor  importance,  and  can  scarcely  count  with 
regard  to  the  earliest  beginnings.  As  to  the  text  of  the  Pacomian 
Rule,  many  recensions  of  it  exist ;  but  these  documents  are  liable  to 
be  modified  considerably  in  the  course  of  time.  It  is  very  difficult  to 
distinguish,  in  those  which  we  possess,  what  goes  back  to  Pacomius 
himself  from  what  has  been  added  gradually  by  the  care  of  his 
successors.  A  considerable  number  of  texts  of  it  go  back  to  a 
summary  given  by  Palladius  {Hist.  Laus.  32)  ;  according  to  him 
{cf.  Gennadius,  De  viris,  7)  an  angel  brought  this  text  to  St  Pacomius, 
engraved  upon  a  table  of  brass.  Sozomen  (iii.  14)  even  says  that  this 
table  was  preserved  in  his  own  time  at  Tabennesi.  The  best  edition 
is  still  that  which  has  come  down  to  us  in  a  Latin  version  by  St 
Jerome  (Migne,  P.  L.,  vol.  xxiii.,  p.  61),  which  had  certainly  not  been 
translated  from  the  original  Coptic,  but  from  a  Greek  text  coming 
from  the  monastery  of  Canope.  Upon  all  this,  see  Ladeuze,  op.  cit., 
p.  256,  et  seq.  Jerome  also  translated  twelve  letters  of  Pacomius 
(Migne,  op.  cit.,  p.  87),  in  which  we  meet  with  Greek  characters 
employed  as  cryptographic  signs.  According  to  Palladius  {loc.  cit.) 
these  characters  seem  to  have  served  also  to  designate  various  classes 
of  monks  ;  but  this  is  not  absolutely  certain. 


p.  500]  ATHANASIUS  AND  PACOMIUS  397 

naturally,  made  a  great  deal.  He  was  conscious  of 
possessing  in  certain  cases  the  power  of  sounding  the 
consciences  of  people,  and  treated  them  in  accordance 
with  the  impression  he  thus  received.  The  bishops  of 
the  neighbourhood  were  disturbed  in  mind  by  this 
singular  gift,  and  Pacomius  had  to  explain  himself  before 
a  synod  held  at  Latopolis.  Apart  from  this,  the  episcopate 
does  not  seem  to  have  thrown  any  obstacle  in  the  way  of 
the  development  of  his  communities ;  far  from  it.  The 
"  Pope,"  Athanasius,  was  their  friend  :  he  visited  Tabennesi, 
in  333>  during  his  pastoral  journey  through  the  Thebaid. 
The  monks  kept  up  a  regular  communication  with 
Alexandria :  they  had  boats  which  plied  between  their 
various  colonies  and  went  down  the  river  as  far  as  the 
capital,  in  order  to  sell  the  produce  of  their  labour  there, 
and  to  buy  things  of  which  they  were  in  need.  In  346, 
several  of  them  found  themselves  just  in  time  to  welcome 
the  bishop  on  his  return  from  exile.  On  their  way,  they 
had  disembarked  at  Pispir,  to  visit  St  Antony,  Pacomius 
had  only  been  dead  a  few  months  :  the  patriarch  of  the 
anchorites  received  them  warmly,  and  extolled  the  merits 
of  the  founder  of  monastic  houses.  Later  on,  when 
exile  had  brought  Athanasius  back  to  Upper  Egypt,  the 
monks  saw  him  once  more  among  them,  proscribed 
and  pursued  by  the  police  of  Constantius.  Pacomius 
had  been  succeeded,  after  a  short  interval,  by  Orsisius,  one 
of  his  first  disciples,  an  excellent  man,  but  one  who  found 
himself  somewhat  disconcerted  when  for  the  first  time 
centrifugal  tendencies  began  to  manifest  themselves 
in  the  congregation.  He  at  once  chose  a  coadjutor  in 
the  person  of  another  Tabennesian  monk  of  the  early 
days,  one  Theodore,  thanks  to  whom  the  Pacomian 
foundations  multiplied.  Soon  they  reached  as  far  as 
Hermopolis  Magna,  opposite  Antinoe.  It  was  there 
that  in  the  reign  of  Julian,  Theodore,  while  on  a  tour  of 
inspection,  met  for  the  last  time  Athanasius,  the  perpetual 
exile.  Foreseeing  that  this  might  happen,  he  had  brought 
many  followers  with  him.  Athanasius  was  received  in 
triumph,   with   the   chanting   of  psalms.      The   "  Abbot " 


398  THE  MONKS  OF  THE  EAST         [ch.  xiv. 

Theodore  conducted  him,  holding  the  bridle  of  his  ass. 
Acclamations  echoed  from  shore  to  shore.  In  this  land 
of  the  upper  river,  there  was  no  occasion  to  trouble  one- 
self about  the  police  of  Alexandria. 

It  was  another  world.  The  people  from  the  great 
town  were  like  foreigners  there  ;  they  were  called  the 
Alexandrians,  the  city  folk  (ttoXitikoI),  the  Hellenes.  In 
the  monasteries,  they  were  treated  as  guests,  and  grouped 
separately.  Their  first  care,  if  they  wished  to  join  the 
community,  was  necessarily  to  learn  the  Coptic  of  Thebes 
(Sahidic). 

Theodore  died  about  368.  The  aged  Orsisius,  who  had 
taken  him  as  coadjutor,  was  still  alive.  Athanasius 
advised  him  to  resume  the  reins  of  government.  Here 
we  come  to  an  end  of  the  information  furnished  by 
the  Life  of  Pacomius,  an  interesting  document,  which 
seems  to  have  been  compiled  immediately  after  the  death 
of  Theodore,  by  one  of  the  few  Greek  or  Greek-speaking 
monks  then  living  in  the  chief  monastery.  Later  on,  a 
colony  of  Pacomians  was  established  close  to  Alexandria, 
at  Canope.  It  was  from  this  colony  that  St  Jerome  got 
his  information  with  regard  to  Pacomius  and  his  Rule ; 
and  it  was  from  this  that  the  greater  part  of  the  visitors, 
whether  Greek  or  Latin,  were  able  to  form  a  judgment 
on  the  Pacomian  institutions. 

Monasticism  continued  to  flourish  in  the  country  of 
its  origin ;  but  it  appears  that,  gradually,  people  came  to 
think  of  it  as  capable  of  realization  apart  from  the  grouping 
of  communities,  which  was  the  ideal  of  St  Pacomius. 
He  was  still  living,  when,  about  the  year  343,  a  child  of 
nine  years  of  age,  called  Schnoudi,  embraced  not  far 
from  Tabennesi  the  profession  of  a  monk.  This  child 
was  destined  to  become  one  of  the  most  original  figures 
in  the  history  of  Egyptian  cenobitism. 

Upon  a  spur  of  the  Libyan  chain,  opposite  the  town 
of  Achmin  {Chemnis),  there  stands  a  kind  of  fortress  of 
imposing  appearance  with  its  high  and  massive  walls. 
This  is  the  White  Monastery  —  the  monastery  of  St 
Schnoudi.     In  former  days  there  was   near   it   a  village 


p.  503]  SCHNOUDI  OF  ATRIPE  399 

called  Atripe.  Towards  the  middle  of  the  4th  century, 
an  anchorite  called  Bgoul  allowed  several  disciples  to 
gather  round  him  there,  and  amongst  them  his  nephew 
Schnoudi  was  soon  to  be  found.  Bgoul  had  organized  his 
followers  into  a  monastery,  adopting  the  cenobitic  system 
of  Pacomius.  After  his  death,  about  388,  the  government 
of  the  community  passed  into  the  hands  of  Schnoudi, 
under  whom  it  assumed  extraordinary  proportions.  On 
the  outskirts  of  the  great  monastery  arose  branch- 
establishments;  convents  for  women  were  added  to  the 
congregation.  A  man  of  ardent  soul,  served  by  a  will 
of  iron  and  most  remarkable  common  sense,  Schnoudi 
was  a  born  leader  of  men.  His  monks,  who  were 
numbered  by  hundreds,  were  entirely  in  his  hands.  He 
led  them  with  severity  ;  any  infringement  of  the  Rule  was 
punished  with  blows  of  whip  or  of  stick.  Schnoudi  was 
himself  the  operator,  and  he  struck  hard ;  one  day  he 
struck  so  hard  that  the  sufferer  died  in  consequence,  a 
circumstance  which  was  not  allowed  to  trouble  him.  His 
influence  soon  extended  throughout  the  whole  countryside, 
where  his  hand,  when  it  was  kind,  was  stretched  out  to 
every  sort  of  suffering  to  relieve  it ;  when  it  was  angry, 
it  fell  with  terrible  force  upon  evil-doers,  upon  bad  priests, 
upon  unjust  judges,  upon  any  pagans  who  still  existed, 
and  upon  their  temples.  He  lived  to  the  incredible  age 
of  one  hundred  and  eighteen  years,  venerated  and  feared 
by  all  the  Thebaid  and  even  by  the  barbarians,  against 
whom  his  monastery  offered  to  the  Roman  soldiers  an 
unassailable  retreat.  Antony  had  given  good  example 
and  advice ;  Pacomius  rules ;  Macarius  at  Scetis  and 
John  at  Lycopolis  astonished  the  world  by  marvels  of 
austerity;  Schnoudi,  in  his  White  Monastery,  was  like 
Elijah  on  Carmel,  an  inspired  administrator  of  justice,  a 
redoubtable  man  of  God.  In  the  social  and  political 
confusion  which  prevailed  in  those  desolate  regions,  it 
was  not  difficult  for  him  to  assume  a  kind  of  divine 
lieutenancy,  and  to  exercise  it  in  his  own  fierce  way.^ 

^  In    addition    to    his   Life,   by   his   disciple   Besas   (AmdHneau, 
Mi'nipifcs  de  la  missum  archcol.  dii  Caire,  vol.  iv.  i),  we  possess  letters 


400  THE  MONKS  OF  THE  EAST         [cii.  xiv. 

It  was  not  only  in  Nitria,  upon  St  Antony's  mountain, 
and  in  the  Pacomian  or  Schnoudist  monasteries,  that 
asceticism  flourished.  Egypt  was  filled  with  monks.  In 
the  reign  of  Theodosius,  the  entire  town  of  Oxyrhynchus  ^ 
belonged  to  them.  Their  cells  invaded  the  towers  of 
the  encircling  walls,  the  gates  of  the  town,  the  temples, 
and  other  unused  public  buildings.  In  Antinoe,  Palla- 
dius  counted  as  many  as  twelve  convents  of  women.^ 
From  Syene  to  the  Delta,  in  the  deserts  that  lie  between 
the  cultivated  lands  and  the  barren  mountains  which 
enclose  them  to  east  and  west,  hermitages  succeeded 
one  another  in  an  unbroken  chain.  Many  were  to  be  seen 
also  in  Lower  Egypt,  towards  the  desert  of  Suez  and  of 
Pelusium  as  far  as  Lake  Menzaleh  and  the  sea.  Here 
and  there,  famous  characters  attracted  attention.  Some 
of  the  anchorites  had  lived  retired  from  the  world  ever 
since  the  days  of  persecution  or  the  first  years  of  peace. 
To  begin  with,  they  had  lived  on  roots  amid  trightful 
solitudes ;  then  disciples  gathered  around  them.  These 
they  directed,  teaching  them,  by  brief  maxims  or  long  con- 
versations, the  discipline  of  a  solitary  life,  and  giving  them 
by  their  own  life  the  most  eloquent  of  examples.  Their 
austerity  shone  throughout  the  neighbourhood,  serving  as 
a  lesson  to  the  clergy  and  the  faithful  who  remained  in  the 
world,  and  also  as  an  argument  to  overcome  the  obstinacy 
of  the  pagans.  Every  kind  of  miracle  was  of  course 
attributed  to  them  ;  some,  like  John  of  Lycopolis,  were 
reputed  to  be  prophets.  Their  renown  even  reached  the 
Court,  which  did  not  disdain,  when  necessity  arose,  to 
consult  them  as  though  they  were  oracles.^ 

and  sermons  of  Schnoudi  himself  which  help  us  to  form  a  good  idea  of 
this  personage.  All  these  documents  are  in  Sahidic  Coptic.  Schnoudi 
knew  Greek,  but  he  only  spoke  it  when  necessary.  His  surroundings 
were  essentially  Coptic,  and  so  was  his  literature.  This  is  why  Greek 
and  Latin  authors,  even  those  who,  like  Palladius,  visited  the  Thebaid 
in  his  lifetime,  betray  no  knowledge  of  him.  The  best  monograph  on 
Schnoudi  is  that  of  Herr  Joh.  Leipoldt,  Schenute  von  Atripe^  in  the 
Texte  und  Untersuchungen,  vol.  xxv.  (1903).    See  also  Ladeuze,  op.  cit. 

^  Hist.  mon.  5.  "^  Hist.  Laus.  59  (137). 

^  John  of  Lycopolis  was  supposed  to  have  predicted  to  Theodosius 


p.  505]  PAPHNUTIUS  401 

We  must  not  think  that  austerity  was  their  only  virtue. 
Their  maxims,  many  of  which  have  been  preserved  to  us, 
indicate  a  great  concern  for  interior  perfection ;  they  can 
readily  be  adapted  to  conditions  of  life  very  different  from 
the  terrible  asceticism  from  whence  they  proceeded. 
Many  generations  of  holy  souls,  in  every  class  of  Christian 
society,  have  profited  by  them  for  centuries,  and  still  do 
so.  They  knew  well,  or  if  all  of  them  did  not,  at  least 
some  of  them  did,  that  their  fasts  and  mortifications  of 
every  kind  were  after  all  but  one  way  amongst  many 
others ;  and  that  even  those  people  who  remained  in  the 
world  could  sanctify  themselves  in  another  manner. 

Paphnutius  of  Heracleopolis  ^  or,  rather,  of  the  desert 
near  that  town,  had  mortified  himself  for  a  long  time, 
when  the  idea  came  to  him  to  ask  God  to  what  degree  of 
merit  he  had  attained.  The  answer  was  that  he  had 
arrived  at  the  same  stage  as  a  man  who  followed  in 
the  nearest  village  the  profession  of  a  flute-player. 
Paphnutius  wished  to  see  him  ;  the  man  told  him  that, 
before  cultivating  music,  he  had  been  a  brigand.  This 
was  not  very  reassuring.  However,  the  hermit,  by  dint 
of  questioning  his  flute-player,  learned  that  once,  during 
his  career  as  a  brigand,  he  had  been  able  to  save  the  life 
and  the  honour  of  a  virgin  consecrated  to  God.  Paphnutius 
returned  to  his  desert  and  renewed  his  mortifications, 
accompanied  by  his  brigand  musician,  whom  he  had  made 
his  disciple.  The  disciple  became  an  excellent  monk,  but 
he  died.  Left  alone,  his  master  made  an  effort  to  lead  a 
life  even  more  severe  than  before.  After  long  years  had 
passed,  he  again  felt  the  desire  to  estimate  his  progress, 
and  again  asked  God  to  tell  him  how  far  he  had  gone. 
"  Exactly  as  far,"  he  was  told, "  as  the  mayor  of  such  and 
such  a  village."  This  man  was  a  good  peasant,  an 
excellent  father  of  a  family,  an  upright  and  benevolent 
administrator  who  enjoyed  universal  esteem.  A  third 
attempt  carried  Paphnutius  to  the  same  level  as  a  merchant 

his  victories  over  Maximus  and  over  Eugenius  ;  and  also,  after  the 
latter  victory,  his  approaching  end. 
1  Hist.  mon.  i6. 

II  2  C 


402  THE  MONKS  OF  THE  EAST         [cn.  xiv. 

of  Alexandria,  an  honest  and  charitable  man,  who  was 
not  unmindful  of  the  hermits  and  used  to  make  them 
presents  of  dried  vegetables. 

Such  lessons  were  not  thrown  away  upon  a  humble 
and  intelligent  monk  such  as  Paphnutius  was.  He  took 
pleasure  in  impressing  upon  others  the  doctrine  derived 
from  his  own  experiences,  and  in  proclaiming  the  truth 
that  in  every  state  of  life  it  is  possible  to  please  God  and 
attain  to  a  high  degree  of  holiness.  When  he  died,  his 
disciples  saw  him  enter  Heaven,  and  receive  a  welcome 
from  the  angels  and  the  prophets. 

Visitors,  as  I  have  already  said,  were  not  lacking  to 
these  holy  people.^  Some  came  from  far — from  Constanti- 
nople, Rome,  Gaul,  and  Spain.  All  of  these  did  not  go  so 
far  as  the  Thebaid.  As  a  general  rule,  they  confined 
themselves  to  the  valley  of  Nitria  and  to  the  monasteries  of 
Lower  Egypt.  This  was  what  was  done  by  the  two 
Melanias,  and  Silvania,  the  half-sister  of  Rufinus,  the 
celebrated  minister;  and  by  St  Paula  and  St  Jerome 
himself — the  latter,  I  fear,  being  rather  more  attracted  by 
the  libraries  and  learned  men  of  Alexandria  than  by  the 
heroes   of  the   desert.       Cassian  went  no  further.     With 

'  Besides  the  lives  of  Antony,  Pacomius,  and  Schnoudi,  the 
Egyptian  monks  of  the  4th  century  are  known  to  us  from  the  follow- 
ing documents  :  1st — The  journey  of  394,  the  Greek  text  of  which, 
separate  and  entire,  has  not  yet  been  published,  although  several 
manuscripts  of  it  have  been  noted  ;  Sozomen  derived  information 
from  it  ;  it  is  also  to  be  found,  blended  with  that  of  Palladius,  in  what 
was  called  until  recent  days  the  Historia  Laitsiaca.  Rufinus  made  a 
translation  of  it,  under  the  title  Hisfona  Monackoriim,  which  gave 
it  wide  currency  among  the  Latins.  2nd — The  Historia  Lausiaca  of 
Palladius,  the  story  of  a  hermit  who  later  became  a  bishop,  after 
having  spent  eleven  years  in  Egypt  (388-399),  chiefly  among  the  monks 
of  Nitria.  Dom  Butler  has  succeeded  in  distinguishing  the  true  text 
of  Palladius  from  the  interpolations  of  the  Historia  Monachorum 
(See  The  Lausiac  History  of  Palladius,  vol  vi.  of  the  Cambridge  Texts 
and  Studies,  \Z()Z-igo4,).  3rd — The  "  Institutes  "  and  "Conferences" 
of  Cassian  who  was  living  in  Egypt  at  the  same  time  as  Palladius,  and 
who,  like  him,  waited  at  least  some  twenty  years  before  publishing 
his  recollections.  4th — In  these  narrative  documents  we  have  already 
a  good  many  mentions  of  the  holy  monks,  and  anecdotes  concerning 
them.     Others  have  come  to  us  directly,  in  the  letters  of  Pacomius 


p.  508]  ETHERIA  403 

greater  determination  Rufinus  of  Aquileia,  who,  besides, 
spent  six  years  in  Egypt,  pushed  on  as  far  as  Pispir. 
Posthumianus,  one  of  the  speakers  in  the  Dialogues  of 
Sulpicius  Severus,  was  not  satisfied  even  with  that :  he 
desired  to  visit  the  far-distant  monasteries  of  St  Antony 
and  of  St  Paul,  near  the  Red  Sea. 

The  Thebaid  of  that  day  comprised  the  present 
Fayoum,  which  from  the  time  of  Theodosius  possessed, 
under  the  name  o{  Arcadia,  a  separate  provincial  organiza- 
tion. Rufinus  and  Posthumianus  went  to  the  Thebaid. 
The  pilgrim  Etheria  (or  Eucheria^),  whose  account  of  her 
journey  has  unfortunately  not  come  down  to  us  in  a  com- 
plete form,  also  visited  the  Thebaid,  In  394,  a  party  of 
travellers  ventured  as  far  as  Lycopolis ;  Rufinus  has 
translated  an  account  of  their  journey.     About  the  same 

and  of  Schnoudi,  and  above  all  in  what  is  called  "  The  Maxims  of  the 
Fathers,"  several  collections  of  which  are  extant :  one,  in  the  alpha- 
betical order  of  the  "Fathers"  (Migne,  P.  G.,  vol.  Ixv.,  pp.  72-440),  has 
been  preserved  in  Greek  ;  two  others,  Rosweyde's  Vt/ae  Fafriim,  Books 
v.-vi.  and  Book  vii.  (Migne,  P.  L.,  vol.  Ixxiii.)  are  known  to  us  through 
ancient  Latin  versions.  These  collections  belong  to  a  time  well  on  in 
the  5th  century ;  but  in  many  cases  they  are  taken  from  older 
collections.  Upon  this,  see  Butler,  op.  c/t,  part  i.,  p.  208.  Indeed,  for 
the  whole  literature  of  this  subject,  recourse  should  be  had  for  informa- 
tion to  Dom  Butler's  book.  It  must  be  added,  however,  that  a 
synthetic  work,  and  even  a  clear  and  convenient  classification  of  the 
sources  of  information  still  remains  a  want  to  be  supplied.  This 
subject,  treated  with  marvellous  perception,  but  without  a  clear  con- 
spectus of  the  matter  as  a  whole,  by  the  venerable  Tillemont,  has  been 
complicated  in  recent  times  by  unjustifiable  hypotheses  and  allega- 
tions as  absurd  as  they  are  ill-natured.  It  has  been  necessary  also  to 
fight  against  the  tendency  of  the  upholders  of  Coptic  to  claim 
originality  and  authority  exclusively  to  the  advantage  of  documents  in 
the  Egyptian  language,  and  to  depreciate  the  Greek  texts. 

'  It  is  she  who  was  at  first  confused  with  the  Silvania  or  Silvia, 
mentioned  above.  On  this  question,  see  the  memoir  of  Dom  Ferotin, 
in  the  Revue  des  Qucstiotis  historiques,  1903,  vol.  Ixxiv.,  p.  367.  In  the 
Revue  augustlniennc,  1903  and  1904,  Pere  Edmond  Bouvy,  starting 
from  the  spelling  Eucheria  (the  MSS.  give  the  readings  Etheria, 
Echeria,  Eiheria,  Egeria)  identifies  the  pilgrim  with  a  daughter  of 
Fl.  Eucherius,  who  was  consul  in  381,  and  uncle  of  Theodosius.  In 
any  case,  Dom  Ferotin  has  proved  that  she  was  a  native  of  Galicia, 
and  belonged  to  a  community  of  religious  in  that  country. 


404  THE  MONKS  OF  THE  EAST  [cii.  xiv. 

time,  Palladius  himself  went  to  see  John  the  prophet. 
Later  on,  the  persecution  which  he  had  to  suffer  as  the 
friend  of  Chrysostom,  forced  him  to  make  a  closer 
acquaintance  with  Upper  Egypt.  Being  banished  to 
Syene,  he  embraced  the  opportunity  of  visiting  several 
Pacomian  communities,  notably  that  of  Panopolis. 

These  journeys  were  not  very  easy  ones.  All  along  the 
marshes  of  the  Nile,  the  pious  travellers  were  liable  to  en- 
counter sleeping  crocodiles,  which  woke  up  at  their  approach 
and  frightened  them  terribly.  Leviathan  and  Behemoth 
then  still  dwelt  in  the  great  river :  hippopotamuses  some- 
times came  out  of  it,  and  roamed  about  the  fields.  In  the 
deserts,  certain  caves  gave  shelter  to  enormous  serpents. 
And  lastly,  the  whole  country  was  more  or  less  infested 
with  brigands.  The  severity  of  the  imperial  taxes  ruined 
so  many  folk  that  the  desert  was  peopled  with  starving 
highwaymen.  When  there  was  no  one  else  to  pillage,  they 
pillaged  the  abodes  of  the  solitaries.  The  monks  con- 
verted some  of  them  from  time  to  time ;  and  several  of 
these  recruits  even  attained  to  a  high  degree  of  sanctity. 
But  many  remained  in  the  world,  and  upon  the  roads. 

What  most  contributed  to  render  the  pilgrimage  to 
Upper  Egypt  difficult  was  the  barbarians  of  the  south. 
In  the  reign  of  Diocletian,  the  Empire  had  retreated 
before  them  from  the  Second  Cataract  to  the  First.  Not 
content  with  this  success,  they  continued  to  extend  their 
ravages  into  the  part  of  the  country  which  the  Romans 
had  reserved  to  themselves.  In  spite  of  the  garrisons 
which  the  military  commandant  {dux  Thebaidos)  had 
established  all  along  the  river-bank  and  in  the  oases,  they 
were  everywhere  to  be  seen,  from  Syene  to  Lycopolis.  It 
was  not  without  reason  that  the  Pacomian  monasteries 
were  surrounded  by  high  walls. 

Visitors,  if  they  were  rich,  willingly  left  alms  behind 
them.  But  the  hermits  were  men  of  few  wants ;  and 
besides,  it  was  seldom  that  they  had  not  some  form  of 
manual  labour,  the  product  of  which  sufficed  to  supply  the 
cost  of  such  needs.  In  return  for  the  marks  of  respect 
shown  to   them,  they  offered   exhortations,  good   advice, 


p.  510-11]  MET.ANIA  IN  EGYPT  40;" 

and  sometimes  little  presents.  The  elder  Melania,  who 
was  very  generous  to  them,  brought  back  with  her  from 
Egypt  many  tokens  of  remembrance.  Pambo  of  Nitria, 
whose  death  she  witnessed,  made  her  a  present  of  a  basket, 
the  last  work  which  had  occupied  his  hands.^  The  gift  of 
Macarius  the  Alexandrian  to  her  was  a  sheep-skin,  which 
had  a  very  strange  history.  One  day,  the  hermit  had 
seen  a  hyena  enter  his  cell,  carrying  her  little  one  between 
her  teeth ;  she  laid  it  at  his  feet,  and  gave  him  to  under- 
stand by  her  attitude  that  she  desired  some  favour  of 
him.  Macarius  looked  at  the  little  creature,  perceived  that 
it  was  blind,  and  restored  its  sight.  The  hyena  took  it  up 
again,  and  departed  ;  but  some  time  after  she  returned  to 
the  hermit's  abode  carrying  a  sheep-skin,  as  a  proof  of 
her  gratitude.- 

Melania  found  Egypt  a  prey  to  a  very  grave  religious 
crisis.  It  was  just  at  that  time  that  the  government 
of  Valens  was  endeavouring  to  secure  to  the  Arians 
the  succession  to  Athanasius,  and  to  impose  its  candidate 
Lucius  as  Bishop  of  Alexandria.  The  monks  of  Nitria 
were  prominent  among  the  opponents  of  this  course. 
Several  of  the  most  venerable  Fathers  were  arrested,  and 
transported  to  an  island  in  the  middle  of  one  of  the 
great  lakes  on  the  coast.^  Others  were  joined  to  the 
company  of  the  bishops  deported  to  Dioczesarea.  Melania 
accompanied  them,  and  provided  for  their  material  wants. 
Her  zealattracted  attention;  theco;is/i/an'so(Pa.\estinehemg 
ignorant  of  her  rank  had  her  arrested,  meaning  to  extort 
money  from  her.  The  Patrician  lady  allowed  herself  to  be 
put  in  prison ;  but  as  soon  as  she  was  there,  she  disclosed 
her  rank ;  the  government  officials  abased  themselves. 

Egypt  did  not  long  preserve  the  monopoly  of 
anchoritism  and  cenobitism.  The  East  soon  entered 
upon  the  paths  opened  by  Antony  and  Pacomius. 

It  was  Hilarion  who  first  introduced  into  Palestine 
the    mode   of  life   of  the   Egyptian    solitaries.*     He   was 

^  J7is/.  Laiis.  lo.         -  Ibid.  i8  (ig-20).         ^'  Rufinus,  H.  E.  ii.  4. 
*  Upon  St  Hilarion,  see  his  life  written  by  St  Jerome.     Cf.  Sozomen, 
H.  E.  iii.  14. 


406  THE  MONKS  OF  THE  EAST         [en.  xiv. 

born  in  a  pagan  family  at  Gaza,  and  sent  to  Alexandria 
to  pursue  his  studies.  He  became  a  Christian ;  and  then 
as  he  heard  a  great  deal  of  Antony,  who  had  just  left 
his  fortress  at  Pispir  and  begun  to  receive  disciples, 
Hilarion  visited  him,  and,  after  a  short  stay,  returned 
to  his  own  country  accompanied  by  a  few  companions 
who,  like  himself,  were  attracted  by  a  hermit's  life.^  He 
took  up  his  abode  on  the  lonely  coast  to  the  south  of 
Gaza,  and  lived  there  a  long  time  in  the  practice  of  extra- 
ordinary asceticism.  From  time  to  time  he  preached  to 
the  pagans  of  the  Philistine  country,  waged  war  against 
the  temples,  and  converted  the  Arabs  of  the  neighbouring 
tribes.     His  disciples  soon  numbered  several  thousands. 

Like  Antony,  Hilarion  was  a  hermit,  the  master  and 
director  of  hermits.  Not  far  from  him  Epiphanius  of 
Eleutheropolis  organized  a  real  monastery,  following  the 
model  of  Pacomius.  He,  too,  had  formed  his  projects  in 
Egypt,  where  he  had  made  some  stay  during  the  last 
years  of  Constantine's  reign.  His  monastic  colony  was 
established  in  the  place  called  Old  Ad,  near  his  native 
village  of  Besandouk.^ 

^  According  to  St  Jerome's  account,  Hilarion  would  seem  to  have 
been  born  in  291  ;  at  the  time  of  his  stay  with  St  Antony  he  could 
only  have  been  fifteen  years  of  age.  This  visit  would  thus  be  placed  in 
306,  when  the  persecution  was  in  full  vigour.  It  is  strange  that 
the  persecution  should  not  have  left  any  trace  in  the  narrative. 

^  Hilarion  and  Epiphanius,  who  had  no  doubt  already  been 
acquainted  with  each  other  in  Palestine,  met  much  later  in  the 
island  of  Cyprus,  where  Epiphanius  became  a  bishop  about  367. 
Hilarion,  being  disturbed  in  his  austerities  by  the  constant  influx 
of  visitors,  betook  himself  to  Egypt  about  356.  Some  years  after, 
Julian's  police,  excited  by  the  people  of  Gaza,  who  were  no  friends 
of  a  hermit  opposed  to  the  gods,  forced  him  to  fly  to  a  greater 
distance.  He  then  stayed  in  Sicily,  afterwards  in  Dalmatia,  and 
finally  at  Paphos  in  Cyprus.  The  pretty  legend  of  his  meeting  with 
Epiphanius  was  well  known.  The  bishop  having  set  before  him  some 
fowl,  the  hermit  protested  that  never  in  his  life  had  he  touched  such 
food.  To  this  Epiphanius  is  said  to  have  replied  that  he  himself  had 
never  lain  down  to  rest  without  being  reconciled  to  any  person  with 
whom  he  might  have  had  some  disagreement.  "  My  father,"  said 
Hilarion,  "your  philosophy  is  worth  more  than  mine.  .  .  ."  {Vttae 
Pafruvi,  V.  4.) 


p.  513-4]  SINAI  407 

Farther  to  the  south,  the  holy  mountain  of  SinaV 
attracted  pilgrims  and  solitaries.  To  these  the  intricate 
valleys  at  the  end  of  the  peninsula  offered  retreats  suitable 
to  their  manner  of  life.  They  quickly  multiplied.  The 
Biblical  memories  of  which  these  places  were  full  could 
not  fail  to  be  eagerly  cherished  by  these  holy  people. 
They  soon  set  themselves  to  discover  the  exact  situation 
of  all  the  scenes  of  the  Exodus.  The  sacred  topography 
of  Sinai  was  fixed  for  centuries. 

Very  soon  the  summit  of  Djebel  Mousa  was  crowned 
by  a  chapel :  another  oratory  arose  on  the  place  of  the 
burning  bush,  the  spot  on  which  visitors  now  find  the 
celebrated  monastery  of  St  Catherine.^  In  the  present 
Wadi-Feiran,  the  inhabited  place  which  used  to  be  called 
the  town  of  Pharan  was,  alike  for  the  wandering  tribes 
of  the  peninsula  and  for  the  hermits,  a  centre  of  commerce 
and  administration.  Hermitages  and  chapels  were  to  be 
found  even  as  far  as  the  seashore,  in  terrible  places  where 
nevertheless,  thanks  to  some  poor  little  stream  of  water 
and  to  the  modesty  of  their  requirements,  the  monks 
succeeded  in  supporting  life. 

It  was  in  this  maritime  region  that  there  lay  the 
desert  of  Raithu,  the  monks  of  which  were  massacred 
in  373  by  Blemmyan  pirates  who  came  from  the  extreme 
end  of  the  Red  Sea.'-  On  the  same  day,  we  are  told, 
a  band  of  Saracens  fell  upon  the  hermitages  above 
Pharan  ;  some  of  the  solitaries  were  able  to  take  refuge 
in  a  tower ;  the  others  were  butchered.'^  Such  raids 
were   frequent.      They  produced    but   little    booty.      But 

1  The  publication  of  the  Peregrinatio  has  definitely  put  an  end 
to  the  theory  according  to  which  these  identifications  only  date  back 
as  far  as  the  time  of  Justinian,  Serbal  having  been,  before  the  Djebel 
Katarin,  the  sacred  mountain  visited  by  Christian  pilgrims.  The 
lady  pilgrim  of  the  time  of  Theodosius  does  not  trouble  herself  about 
Serbal  ;  the  holy  places  she  visits  are  the  same  that  we  visit  now. 

2  These  pirates  did  not  attack  the  monks  only.  The  people  of 
Pharan  who  tried  to  stop  them  were  beaten  by  them,  and  their 
wives  and  children  made  prisoners. 

='  So  the  account  of  Ammonius,  an  eye-witness,  in  Combefis, 
lUustrium    martynun  lecti  triionphi  (i66o),  p.  88.     Cf.  the  story  of 


408  THE  MONKS  OF  THE  EAST         [ch.  xiv. 

the  monks  themselves  had  a  certain  marketable  value 
for  the  Bedouins.  They  sold  them  as  slaves,  or  sacrificed 
them  to  their  goddess  Ouazza,  the  Morning-Star. 

In  Palestine  and  in  Syria,  as  in  Egypt,  the  district 
of  the  monks  was  also  that  of  the  brigands.  From  the 
Red  Sea  to  the  Euphrates,  solitaries  and  Bedouins  en- 
countered each  other  in  the  deserts  on  the  frontier. 
From  time  to  time,  incidents  such  as  I  have  just  been 
describing  took  place  as  the  result.  By  degrees,  however, 
their  relations  improved.  The  virtues  of  these  holy  men, 
their  austerity  and  their  charity  at  last  ended  by  making 
an  impression,  at  any  rate  to  some  extent,  even 
upon  barbarians,  who  were  little  enough  disposed  to 
gentle  emotions.  Little  by  little  the  monks  led  them 
to  Christianity.  But  of  this  we  shall  have  to  speak 
later. 

Jerusalem  and  the  whole  of  Palestine  ^  were  filled 
with  monks.  In  the  Holy  City,  the  monazoiites  et 
parthenae,  whom  we  find  such  regular  attendants  at  the 
services  of  Bishops  Cyril  and  John,  represent  undoubtedly 
an  efflorescence  of  the  ancient  local  asceticism.  But  very 
early,  around  Jerusalem,  there  were'  monasteries  where 
the  religious  lived  in  community,  and  swarms  of  hermits 
of  the  Egyptian  types.  There  were  some  of  all  languages. 
The  Latin  establishments  over  which  Rufinus  presided 
on  the  Mount  of  Olives,  and  Jerome  at  Bethlehem,  are 
representatives  to  us  of  many  others  of  the  same  type, 
inhabited  by  male  or  female  religious  of  Greek  language 
or  Syriac  speech. 

In  Phoenicia,  where  Christianity  had  still  made  but 
little  progress,  settlements  of  ascetics  were  much  less 
frequent.  A  few  isolated  hermits,  however,  were  to  be 
found  there ;  amongst  them  we  hear  of  two  disciples  of 
St  Antony,  Cronius  and  James  the  lame.     In  this  country 

Theodulus,  the  son  of  St  Nilus,  related  by  his  father  himself 
{Narrationes,  Migne,  P.  G.,  vol.  Ixxix.,  p.  589).  This  history  belongs 
to  the  early  years  of  the  5th  century. 

'  Palladius,   //z'sf.   Laus.   43-46   (103,   104,    113,   117,    118),   48-55 
(106-112) ;  Sozomen,  H.  E,  vi.  32.     See  also  the  Peregrinatio. 


p.  516]    MONKS  OF  PALESTINE  AND  SYRIA         409 

the  monks  had  much  to  suffer;  they  encountered  continually 
the  ill-will  of  the  pagan  population.^ 

It  was  otherwise  in  Northern  Syria,  around  the 
Christian  cities  of  Antioch,  Berea,  and  Chalcis  ;  and  in 
the  country  beyond  the  Euphrates,  in  the  neighbourhood 
of  Edessa,  Batna,  and  even  Harran.  Although  the 
inhabitants  of  this  town  had  remained  unsubmissive  to 
the  preaching  of  the  Gospel,  the  places  consecrated  by 
memories  of  Abraham,  Laban,  and  Rebecca  possessed 
their  chapels,  just  as  did  those  of  Moses  and  Elias.  The 
Syrian  desert,  from  Lebanon  as  far  as  the  mountains  of 
Armenia,  was  full  of  solitaries.  Aones  was  considered  the 
oldest  of  all  these.  He  lived  for  a  long  time  near  Harran, 
by  the  well  at  which  Jacob  and  Rachel  had  first  met. 
These  solitaries  led  a  life  still  more  severe  than  their 
brethren  of  Egypt ;  some  of  them  were  to  be  found  who 
lived  like  wild  beasts,  in  the  heart  of  the  forest,  without 
any  provisions,  their  only  food  being  uncooked  herbs. 
They  were  called  shepherds  (/3oo-/co/)  by  their  neighbours — 
a  charitable  name,  for  they  might  more  justly  have  been 
described  as  sheep.  Others  bound  themselves  to  chains 
made  fast  in  the  rock,  carried  enormous  weights,  and  gave 
themselves  up  to  all  the  extravagances  of  Indian  fakirs. 
Sometimes  the  bishops  tried  to  persuade  them  to 
moderation ;  but  they  were  scarcely  listened  to.  As  a 
contrast,  the  Arabs  of  the  desert  and  the  Syrian  peasants 
had  the  greatest  veneration  for  these  extraordinary  beings. 
Their  popularity  even  extended  to  the  towns.  In  times 
of  crisis,  the  clergy  did  not  fail  to  avail  themselves  of 
their  prestige.  It  was  thus  that,  in  the  reign  of  Valens, 
we  find  Aphraates  and  Julian  Sabbas  leaving  their 
solitudes  in  Mesopotamia,  and  going  to  Antioch  to  take 
sides  with  Flavian  and  Diodore,  and  to  assist  them  in 
their  struggle  against  heresy  in  official  quarters." 

^  Palladius,  Hist.  Laiis.  47  (90-95)  ;  Sozomen,  H.  E.  vi.  34. 

2  Upon  Aphraates,  see  Theodoret,  Hisf.  rclig.  8  ;  upon  Julian,  see 
his  panegyric  by  St  Ephrem  (Assemani,  S.  Ephrae7ni  Syri  Opera,  gr.- 
lat.,  vol.  iii.,  p.  254);  Palladius,  Hist.  Laus.  42  (102);  Theodoret, 
Hist,  rclig.  1  ;    Sozomen,  H.  E.   iii.    14.     It    is  especially   from   the 


410  THE  MONKS  OF  THE  EAST         [ch.  xiv. 

Several  highly  cultivated  men,  such  as  Jerome  and 
Chrysostom,  carried  their  admiration  for  this  mode  of  life 
so  far  as  to  wish  to  practise  it  themselves.  Jerome  soon 
lost  his  taste  for  it ;  Chrysostom  only  left  the  desert  when 
illness,  the  natural  consequence  of  his  ascetical  indis- 
cretions, finally  triumphed  over  his  courage. 

We  do  not  find  that  the  pious  extravagances  of  the 
solitaries  of  the  East  had  any  definite  connection  with 
the  movement  in  Egypt.  The  Eastern  monks  were  not 
much  inclined  to  a  life  in  common.  The  grouping  in 
monasteries  or  colonies  of  anchorites  was  only  established 
amongst  them  by  slow  degrees.  We  never  hear  of  any 
actual  rules  by  which  they  were  guided.  It  is  not 
surprising  that,  having  no  superiors  to  direct  them,  living 
far  from  one  another,  and  each  of  them  according  to  his 
own  will,  they  should  have  allowed  themselves  to  be 
carried  into  real  excesses. 

Quite  otherwise  was  the  form  of  monasticism  which  we 
meet  with  in  Asia  Minor.  Here,  Egyptian  influence  is 
evident.  Eustathius  first,  and  Basil  afterwards,  were 
disciples  of  the  Egyptian  monks.  In  the  hands  of 
Eustathius  asceticism  immediately  assumed  distinctive 
forms,  which,  whether  through  the  master's  own  fault 
or  that  of  imprudent  disciples,  offended  the  customs  of  the 
country  and  excited  very  lively  protests.  The  nature  of 
the  country,  in  Pontus  and  Cappadocia,  did  not  allow  of 
the  same  liberty  as  in  Egypt  and  in  the  Orient.  In  those 
regions,  the  desert  was  never  very  far  off;  and  when  once 
persons  had  found  their  way  there,  they  could  practise  any 
extremes  in  the  way  of  asceticism  that  they  wished,  without 
incommoding  anyone  else.  Cold,  too,  was  a  hardship 
which  they  seldom  had  to  fear,  and  the  temperature  in 
those  parts  moderates  the  appetite.  If  necessary,  it  is 
quite  possible  to  live  there  on  a  few  dates.  It  was  quite 
different  north  of  the  Taurus.  In  that  cold  climate,  the 
desert  meant  the  bare  mountain-side,  fatal  to  human  life 
in  winter.     It  was  absolutely  necessary  that  the  ascetics 

Historia  religiosa  of  Theodoret  that  we  derive  our  information  as  to 
the  monks  of  Syria. 


r.  518-9]  EUSTATHIUS  AND  BASIL  411 

should  not  go  very  far  from  inhabited  places,  and,  as 
their  wants  were  not  so  few  as  those  of  their  brethren  in 
the  Thebaid,  they  were  obliged  to  enter  into  closer 
communication  with  the  rest  of  mankind. 

Eustathius,  notwithstanding  his  Egyptian  experiences, 
does    not   appear,   at    first,    to    have    propagated    either 
monasticism  nor  anchoritism.     The  criticisms  addressed 
to  him  by  the  Council  of  Gangra,  about  340,^  are  directed, 
not  against  an  exotic  form  of  asceticism,  nor  even  against 
a    gross    exaggeration    of    the    ancient    and    traditional 
asceticism,  but   rather   against   a   tendency  to  represent 
it     as     obligatory,    as     the     Encratites     did.       Whether 
Eustathius    was   judged   too   unfavourably   at   that   time, 
or  whether  he  corrected  his  ideas  afterwards,  one  thing 
is  certain,  namely,  that  at  the  time  when  he  allied  himself 
with  St  Basil,  his  asceticism  no  longer  excited  on  the  part  of 
the  Church  any  objection  founded  on  principle.    Upon  that 
ground  master  and  disciple  always  walked  hand  in  hand. 
The  quarrel  which  separated  them  in  their  later  years  did 
not  affect  this  point.     A  large  number  of  ascetical  works,- 
Great   and    Little    Rules,    Constitutions,   etc.,   were    soon 
collected   together,  under   the    name   of  St    Basil,^    in    a 
special     collection,    which    was    afterwards    considerably 
enlarged     by    numerous     additions.       In     the     time     of 
Sozomen,'*  some  people  attributed  the  paternity  of  them 
to  Eustathius.     This  is  extremely  doubtful.     But,  what- 
ever  may   be   the    truth  about   this  question  of  literary 
history,  the  spirit,  being  assuredly  that  of  Basil,  can  scarcely 
differ  from  that  of  Eustathius.     What  is  of  importance, 
though  for  quite  other  reasons,  is  that  we  possess  in  these 
books  the  monastic  code  of  the  Byzantine  East.     It  is 
under  the  Rule  of  St  Basil  that  all  the  monasteries  of  the 
Graeco-Slavonic  world  have  lived   for  centuries,  and  still 
live  at  the  present  day. 

In  spite  of  its  Egyptian  connections,  Basilian  monas- 

'  See  above,  p.  305.  "  Migne,  P.  G.,  vol.  xxxi. 

^  The  a.(TK-qriKbv  of  Basil  is  already  mentioned,  in  392,  in  the  De 
viris  of  St  Jerome  (c.  116). 
^  iii.  14,  ^  31- 


412  THE  MONKS  OF  THE  EAST         [ch.  xiv. 

ticism  marks  a  great  progress  towards  moderation  and 
discipline.  A  strong  point  is  made  of  the  life  in  com- 
munity ;  the  inspiration  of  Pacomius  prevails  over  that 
of  Antony.  The  monks  have  a  superior,  whose  office 
is  to  maintain  discipline,  to  preside  over  admissions  and 
novitiates,  to  instruct  and  direct  the  whole  community. 
Their  time  is  to  be  divided  between  meetings  for  prayer, 
the  reading  of  the  Bible,  and  manual  labour,  especially 
working  in  the  fields.  The  austerities  appointed  by 
the  Rule  are  of  a  simple  character  and  comparatively 
moderate. 

From  Pontus  and  Cappadocia,  as  also  from  the  colonies 
of  Constantinople,^  this  new  type  of  asceticism  soon  spread 
with  the  greatest  rapidity.  Public  opinion,  and  especially 
episcopal  opinion,  could  not  fail  to  show  more  favour 
towards  it  than  to  Eastern  eccentricities.  It  was  even 
grateful  to  it  for  gradually  absorbing  the  more  ancient 
form  of  asceticism,  that  of  the  religious  living  in  the  world. 
In  the  monasteries,  the  enthusiasm  of  celibates  and 
consecrated  virgins  found  a  discipline  which  the  limits  of 
the  local  Church  could  not  have  imposed  upon  them 
without  difficulty.  The  monasteries  themselves,  it  is 
true,  had  some  trouble  in  the  early  days  in  reconciling 
themselves  with  the  earlier  ecclesiastical  organization : 
there  were  clashings,  tentative  steps,  some  disputes. 
Gradually,  however,  the  balance  was  attained,  and  the 
new  relations  were  formally  sanctioned  by  canonical 
legislation. 

As  to  the  civil  law,  its  intervention  scarcely  ever  made 
itself  felt  in  these  early  days,  except  occasionally  and  to 
meet  particular  circumstances.  Valens,  being  angry  with 
the  monks  of  Nitria,  who  resisted  the  usurpation  of 
Lucius,  punished  a  certain  number  of  them,  and  even 
made  a  law  imposing  upon  them  military  service. 
This  law,  which  St  Jerome  mentions  in  the  year  377, 
could  not  have  had  any  lasting  effects.  And  besides,  we 
have  good  reason  for  believing  that  it  only  affected  those 
monks  who  had  given  cause  for  complaint.  Theodosius 
^  See  above,  pp.  295  and  306. 


r.  52ij        THEODOSIUS  AND  THE  MONKS  413 

also  took  measures  against  the  monks ;  for  some  time  he 
forbade  them  to  live  in  the  towns,^  where  their  presence 
was  often  prejudicial  to  good  order.  Pious  as  he  was, 
this  emperor  had  little  taste  for  the  interference  of  the 
monks  in  the  affairs,  even  the  religious  affairs,  of  the 
world  which  they  claimed  to  have  renounced.  And 
indeed  we  do  not  see  what  administration  could  have 
consented  to  allow  the  wandering  through  the  towns 
and  on  the  high-roads  of  these  undisciplined  bands  of 
professed  redressors  of  wrongs,  who  were  always  ready  to 
interfere  with  sentences  and  with  the  application  of  the 
laws,  to  ill-use  anyone  who  did  not  share  their  opinions,  and 
to  destroy  with  violence  the  edifices  of  proscribed  forms  of 
worship.  MonacJii  viiilta  scelera f admit,  said-  Theodosius 
to  St  Ambrose.  It  was  a  still  more  serious  matter  that, 
with  their  austerity,  their  freedom  of  speech  and  their 
boldness,  they  were  extremely  popular.  From  this  point  of 
view,  the  government  could  not  but  look  with  a  favourable 
eye  upon  their  confinement  in  monasteries,  where,  thanks 
to  the  Rule  and  to  the  authority  of  the  superiors,  there 
was  reason  to  hope  that  they  would  preserve  the  spirit 
of  their  vocation,  and  not  transform  themselves  into 
disturbers  of  the  public  peace.  But,  in  the  time  of 
Theodosius,  the  institution  of  the  monasteries  was  very 
far  from  being  sufficiently  widespread,  to  produce  these 
salutary  effects  everywhere.  It  was  still  necessary  for  a 
considerable  time  to  reckon  with  the  enthusiasm  of  the 
monks  and  their  popularity. 

'  Cod.  Theod.  xvi.  3,  i,  a  law  revoked  two  years  later  (xvi.  3,  2). 
-  Ambrose,  Ep.  41,  §  27. 


CHAPTER   XV 

THE   WEST   IN    THE   DAYS   OF   ST   AMBROSE 

St  Hilary  and  his  writings.  St  Martin  of  Tours.  Council  of  Valence. 
Priscillian  and  his  asceticism.  Spanish  disputes :  Council  of 
Saragossa.  Attitude  of  Damasus,  of  Ambrose,  and  of  Gratian. 
Maximus  in  Gaul ;  the  trial  at  Treves.  The  Ithacians.  Reaction 
under  Valentinian  II.;  the  schism  of  Felix;  the  rhetorician 
Pacatus.  Priscillianism  in  Galicia.  Council  of  Toledo  :  dissen- 
sions in  the  Spanish  episcopate.  The  Priscillianist  doctrine.  St 
Ambrose  and  the  Court  of  Justina.  Ambrose  and  Theodosius. 
Pope  Siricius.     Jovinian  and  St  Jerome. 

Hilary  of  Poitiers  died  in  366/  leaving  behind  him  a 
great  memory.  Of  all  the  bishops  of  the  West,  it  was 
he  who,  throughout  the  final  struggles,  had  played  the 
greatest  part,  and  that  not  only  in  Gaul  but  in  the  East 
and  in  Italy.  He  derived  no  special  authority  from  the 
situation  of  his  see,  but  his  soul  was  the  soul  of  a  leader 
of  men  ;  and  in  times  of  crisis  they  rallied  round  him 
as  by  instinct.  High-spirited  and  determined,  able  to 
form  a  quick  and  confident  judgment  of  a  situation,  he 
knew  how  to  resist,  and  his  resistance  was  not  to  be 
overcome ;  he  knew  also  how  to  open  up  ways  of  arrange- 
ment when  any  were  to  be  found.  The  impression  made 
by  his  actions  was  strengthened,  for  later  generations,  by 
the  witness  of  his  writings.  To  Christianity,  which  he  did 
not  embrace  till  the  prime  of  life,  he  had  brought  a  culture 
which  was  already  very  considerable.  When  banished 
to  Asia,  he  found  in  study  an  employment  for  his  enforced 
leisure  :  it  was  then  that  he  made  himself  familiar  with 

^  On    January    14,    following     the    tradition     of    the     liturgical 
anniversary. 

414 


p.  524]  HILARY  OF  POITIERS  415 

the  Greek  language,  and  gained  acquaintance  with  the 
Doctors  of  the  East,  especially  with  Origen,  whose 
figurative  exegesis,  always  concerned  to  rediscover  the 
New  Testament  in  the  Old,  squared  with  what  Hilary 
was  familiar  with  in  others  and  had  himself  attempted. 
But  it  was  in  theology  especially  that  Hilary  learnt  from 
the  Easterns.  He  had  left  Gaul  with  very  vague  ideas 
on  the  controversies  of  the  day^;  he  returned,  bringing 
not  only  his  De  Synodis,  in  which  are  treated  questions 
of  great  subtlety,  but  also  a  great  work,  in  twelve  books, 
on  the  Trinity.  These  compositions  display  a  very 
considerable  advance  upon  his  "  Commentary  on  St 
Matthew,"  which  was  written  before  356.  In  that, 
Hilary  was  still  influenced  by  the  ideas  of  Tertullian 
and  Novatian :  the  Word  is  Eternal  as  Word,  not  as 
Son.2  The  difficulty  of  this  language  of  a  bygone  age 
was  revealed  to  him  by  a  deeper  examination.  We  meet 
with  it  no  more  in  the  writings  of  his  exile. 

Hilary  also  took  an  interest  in  poetry.  He  had  com- 
posed a  collection  of  hymns.  One  of  these  compositions,  at 
least,  has  come  down  to  us :  it  is  an  alphabetical 
canticle,^  in  the  Horatian  metre  Sic  te  diva  potens  Cypri. 
I  have  already  mentioned  his  requests  to  the  Emperor 
Constantius,  and  the  terrible  pamphlet  he  directed  at  him, 
in  360,  during  a  moment  of  despair.  It  was  at  that 
time,  too,  that  Hilary  determined  to  expose  to  the  public,  in 
a  narrative  well  supported  by  proofs,  the  origin  and  actual 
state  of  the  episcopal  disputes.  Of  this  work,  analogous 
in  form  and  intention  to  the  Apology  of  Athanasius 
against  the  Arians,  we  only  possess  now  a  few  fragments'* 
and  a  prologue,  evidently  imitated  from  the  Histories  of 
Tacitus.^  And  even  the  fragments  which  have  survived  are 
those  of  a  revised  edition,  for  we  find  in  them  documents 

1  "  Regeneratus  pridem  et  in  cpiscopatu  aliquantisper  manens, 
fidem  Nicaenam  numquam  nisi  exsulaturus  audivi "  {De  Synodis^  91). 

-  In  Matth.  xvi.  4  ;  x,xxi.  3. 

■''  Published  by  Gamurrini,  from  a  MS.  at  Arezzo  {Sattcti  Hilarii 
tmciatus,  etc.,  Rome,  1887,  p.  28). 

■*  These  are  what  are  called  his  Fragmenta  historica. 

^  Cf.  Fragni.  i.  4,  with  Tacitus,  Hist.  i.  2. 


416  IN  THE  DAYS  OF  ST  AMBROSE      [ch.  xv. 

of  a  date  later  not  only  than  360,  but  also  than  Hilary's 
death. 

It  is  a  singular  thing  that  this  great  champion  of 
Nicene  orthodoxy,  who  fought  and  suffered  so  much  for 
Athanasius,  seems  to  have  remained  unknown  to  him. 
Not  once  is  he  mentioned  in  the  writings  of  the  Bishop 
of  Alexandria.  The  other  Easterns  are  not  less  ignorant 
of  him.  Theodoret  never  speaks  of  him  ;  if  Socrates,  and 
Sozomen  after  him,  tell  us  something  about  Hilary,  it  is 
thanks  to  Rufinus  whose  ill-constructed  history  was  trans- 
lated into  Greek.  It  was  quite  otherwise  in  the  West. 
The  memory  of  the  struggles  against  the  Arians  upheld  by 
the  Emperor  Constantius  soon  passed  into  oblivion  ;  but 
Hilary's  books  did  not  perish.  He  was  always  considered 
a  master  in  doctrine,  even  when  men  had  Ambrose, 
Jerome,  and  Augustine. 

Among  the  friends  of  Hilary  there  had  long  been 
found  a  strange  ascetic  called  Martin,  who,  after  having 
served  in  the  army,  discharged  for  some  time  at  Poitiers 
the  office  of  exorcist.  Martin's  parents  were  pagans ; 
his  father,  an  officer  in  the  army,  made  him  serve  under 
the  standards ;  later  he  retired  of  his  own  accord  from 
the  service  and  settled  at  Sabaria,  in  Pannonia,  of  which 
he  was  a  native.  Martin,  when  only  twelve  years  old, 
had  secured  admission  as  a  catechumen,  at  Pavia,  where 
his  parents  then  resided.  We  find  him,  later  on,  at 
Amiens,^  and  then  at  Worms,  where  he  asked  for  his 
discharge  from  the  army,  acting  under  an  inward  prompt- 
ing to  renounce  the  world  and  lead  the  life  of  an  ascetic. 
Shortly  after  his  establishment  at  Poitiers,  he  repaired 
to  Pannonia  in  the  hope  of  converting  his  parents.  In 
the  case  of  his  mother  he  succeeded ;  but  the  old  tribune 
remained  faithful  to  his  gods.  It  was  during  this  time 
that  Hilary  was  beginning  his  journey  into  exile.  Martin 
protested  with  as  much  vigour  as  he  could  in  his  position, 
strenuously  undertaking  the  defence  of  his  master,  of 
the   others   who   were   proscribed,   and   of    the    faith    of 

1  It  is  with  Amiens  that  the  celebrated  story  of  the  divided  cloak 
is  connected. 


p.  526]  ST  MARTIN  OF  TOURS  417 

Nicaea.  He  had  much  to  endure  on  this  account,  for  the 
bishops  of  Pannonia  were  all  more  or  less  on  the  opposite 
side.  In  Milan,  where  he  wished  to  settle,  Auxentius 
made  his  life  so  hard  that  he  sought  refuge  in  the  little 
island  of  Gallinaria,  on  the  coast  of  Liguria.  On  Hilary's 
return  he  rejoined  him  at  Poitiers,  where  he  was  allowed 
to  live  as  he  liked.  In  the  neighbourhood  of  the  town 
he  chose  for  himself  a  hermitage,  round  which  other 
ascetics  soon  gathered.  This  was  the  origin  of  the 
monastery  of  Liguge,  the  first  of  the  kind  in  Gaul  and 
even  in  the  West.  These  holy  people,  and  especially 
their  master,  soon  attracted  attention.  Seven  years  after 
the  death  of  Hilary  (in  373),  the  Church  of  Tours  having 
lost  its  bishop,  the  voice  of  the  people  made  itself  heard 
to  acclaim  the  Saint  of  Poitiers  as  his  successor.  There 
was  some  opposition,  especially  among  the  bishops,  who 
did  not  like  the  idea  of  having  as  a  colleague  a  monk 
who  did  not  wash  himself  or  dress  properly.  In  this 
we  see  already  the  conflict  between  popular  enthusiasm — 
which  thinks  more  of  character  than  of  appearance — and 
the  worldly  considerations  which  prevail,  and  will  do  so 
more  and  more,  with  the  superior  clergy.  Martin  was 
consecrated  in  spite  of  this  opposition,  albeit  reinforced 
by  his  own  ;  but  he  found  means  to  combine  the  monastic 
life  with  the  duties  of  his  new  position.  Another  monastery 
was  founded  by  him  near  Tours,  on  the  cliffs  which 
overhang  on  the  north  the  bank  of  the  Loire.^  There 
he  took  up  his  abode  with  his  disciples,  and  there  he 
spent  all  the  time  which  was  not  occupied  by  his  pastoral 
cares.  In  his  life,  which  we  owe  to  the  enthusiasm  of 
one  of  his  friends,  Sulpicius  Severus,  a  great  nobleman 
who  had  been  converted  to  asceticism,  we  find  mention, 
in  the  midst  of  many  miracles,  of  a  characteristic  trait — 
the  war  which  he  waged  against  the  rural  paganism. 
Martin  had  a  difficult  task  in  endeavouring  to  Christianize 
the  peasants  of  Gaul,  who  were  strongly  attached  to  their 
ancient  religious  usages,  to  the  worship  associated  with 
their  rustic  temples  and  the  sacred  trees. 

^  This  is  Marmoutier  {Martini  monasterium). 
II  2D 


418  IN  THE  DAYS  OF  ST  AMBROSE       [ch.  xv. 

This  struggle  against  declining  paganism  was  at  this 
time  the  chief  concern  of  the  bishops.  In  other  respects 
we  do  not  find  that  in  these  districts  of  the  Far  West 
the  twenty  years  which  followed  the  Council  of  Ariminum 
were  fertile  in  incident.  Of  the  island  of  Britain  we  hear 
nothing  until  the  5th  century.  In  Gaul,  Martin  was 
already  a  bishop,  when  a  council  assembled  at  Valence 
(in  374)  to  settle  some  dispute  of  which  we  know  no 
particulars.  We  only  possess  some  disciplinary  regulations 
communicated  in  the  form  of  a  letter  to  the  bishops  of 
the  two  administrative  dioceses  ^  between  which  the 
Galilean  provinces  were  divided.  The  first  of  the 
signatories,  among  whom  appear  the  Bishops  of  Treves, 
Vienne,  Aries,  and  Lyon,  is  the  Bishop  of  Agen, 
Foegadius  or  Phcebadius,  of  whom  we  have  heard  in 
the  time  of  the  Emperor  Constantius. 

In  Spain,  the  little  fire  of  schism  which  Bishop 
Gregory  was  feeding  at  Illiberris  (Granada)'^ — it  was 
not  a  fire  which  burnt  very  brightly — was  extinguished 
with  him.  Certain  Novatians  afforded  occupation  to  the 
pen  of  Pacian,'*  Bishop  of  Barcelona.  All  this  was  of 
little  consequence.  But  the  moment  was  approaching 
when  Spain  would  attract  men's  attention  and  set  all  the 
West  in  commotion. 

About  the  beginning  of  the  reign  of  Gratian,  a  great 
deal  was  heard  of  an  ascetic  movement  of  a  peculiar 
character,     directed     by    an     expert     theologian     called 

1  "  Fratribus  per  Gallias  et  quinque  provincias  constitutis 
episcopis." 

^  See  above,  p.  284. 

^  When  St  Jerome  wrote  his  De  viris  (in  392)  Gregory  appears 
to  have  been  still  alive. 

*  Three  letters  to  a  Novatian  called  Sympronianus  (Migne,  P.  L., 
vol.  xiii.,  p.  1051  et  seq.).  Pacian  also  left  two  homilies,  one  on 
baptism,  the  other  on  penitence.  In  a  work  which  is  lost,  the 
Cervulus,  he  preached  against  certain  pagan  superstitions,  in  particular 
against  the  masquerades  of  January  i.  His  success  was  small ;  we 
even  find  him  lamenting  that  his  descriptions  had  given  a  taste  for  the 
Carnival  to  persons  who  had  never  heard  of  it  before  {Paraenesis,  c.  i  ; 
Migne,  oJ>.  cit.,  p.  looi). 


p.  529]  PRISCILLIAN  41  y 

Priscillian.^  He  was  a  rich  man,  distinguished  by  birth 
and  education,  well  versed  in  Christian  and  other  literature, 
even  in  astrology  and  the  occult  sciences,  endowed  with 
a  keen  intellect  and  a  persuasive  eloquence  ;  and  all  these 
gifts  were  at  the  service  of  an  ardent  zeal  for  the  propaga- 
tion of  his  own  ideas.  These  were  chiefly  connected 
with  the  right  mode  of  life  :  Priscillian  was  a  preacher 
of  asceticism. 

Asceticism  was  not  unknown  in  Spain.  The  Council 
of  Elvira  speaks  much  of  celibates  {confessores)  and  conse- 
crated virgins,  meaning  by  those  terms  persons  who 
practised  continence  and  abstinence  according  to  the 
already  time-honoured  customs  of  the  Church,  and  within 
the  bounds  of  its  organization.  The  disciples  of  Priscillian 
went  further  in  marking  themselves  out  as  distinct  from 
these.  In  the  first  place  they  were  disciples  of  a  particular 
man,  and  of  a  man  who  had  no  mission  to  teach  from 
the  Church,  who  claimed  to  some  extent  an  inspiration 
of  his  own  and  took  his  stand  in  his  teaching,  not  only 
upon  the  received  Scriptures,  but  also  upon  the  apocryphal 
writings,  and  notably  upon  those  lives  of  the  Apostles 
Peter,  John,  Andrew,  and  Thomas,  which  were  so  strongly 
imbued  with  the  Encratite  spirit  opposed  to  marriage, 
to  wine,  and  to  any  kind  of  substantial  food.  Moreover, 
there  prevailed  among  them  a  tendency  to  despise 
other  Christians.  They  separated  themselves  at  cer- 
tain times  of  the  year,  during  Lent  and  in  the  days 
before  the  Epiphany  ^ ;  at  such  times  they  disappeared 
from    sight ;    no   one   saw   them ;    they   kept    themselves 

*  Upon  the  Piiscillianist  movement,  see  Sulpicius  Severus,  C/iron. 
ii.  46-51  (cf.  Dial.  ii.  6,  ii),  whose  account  must  be  corrected  some- 
times by  notes  of  Priscillian  himself,  in  his  apologetical  memoirs, 
especially  the  second  treatise  addressed  to  Pope  Damasus  [^Corpus 
script,  eccl.  (Vienna),  vol.  xviii.]  ;  cf.  the  Council  of  Saragossa  in  380  ; 
letter  of  Maximus  to  Pope  Siricius  {Coll.  Avell.  40) ;  Philastrius, 
De  Haeresibus^  84  ;  Pacatus,  Panci^yric  of  Theodosius,  29  ;  Jerome, 
De  viris,  and  letter  75  ;  Council  of  Toledo  in  the  year  400. 

-  From  December  17  to  January  6,  says  the  Council  of  Saragossa 
(canon  4).  It  is  possible  that  at  the  time  of  the  council  the  feast  of 
Christmas  had  not  yet  been  introduced  into  Spain. 


420  IN  THE  DAYS  OF  ST  AMBROSE      [ch.  xv. 

shut  up  in  their  own  houses  or  in  the  mountains.  It 
was  known  that  they  held  secret  meetings  in  lonely  villas, 
and  it  was  remarked  that  they  generally  walked  bare- 
footed. They  fasted  on  Sundays.  If  they  came  to 
Church  they  allowed  the  Eucharist  to  be  given  to  them ; 
but  no  one  saw  them  communicate.  Finally,  and  this 
was  a  more  serious  matter  still,  women  who  are  always 
delighted  with  any  novelty,  even  and  especially  of  a  relig- 
ious character,  fluttered  continually  round  the  celebrated 
teacher.  He  held  meetings  for  women  only,  over  which 
he  presided,  either  in  person  or  by  means  of  his  assistants. 

All  this  was  calculated  to  cause  anxiety.  A  proselytiz- 
ing asceticism  has  always  excited  ill-feeling  on  the  part  of 
ordinary  Christians.  And,  at  the  time  of  which  we  are 
now  speaking,  the  clergy  lent  it  little  support  or  rather 
offered  resistance  to  it,  whether  from  bad  motives, 
through  attachment  to  a  somewhat  self-indulgent  form  of 
life,  or  from  good,  such  as  a  care  for  unity,  and  a  fear  lest 
such  observances  might  conceal  some  reprehensible 
doctrine.  On  this  last  point  their  fears  were  not  without 
foundation ;  from  the  very  beginning,  discreditable 
rumours  were  in  circulation  with  regard  to  the  new  sect. 
Nothing,  however,  was  as  yet  proved  :  criticism  could  only 
take  hold  of  what  was  seen  from  the  outside — seclusion, 
teachers  without  authority,  meetings  of  women,  and  the 
use  of  apocryphal  books. 

The  first  protest  came  from  the  Bishop  of  Cordova, 
Hyginus,  who  set  in  motion  his  colleague  of  Emerita, 
Ydacius.  The  latter  at  once  entered  upon  a  campaign. 
Among  the  adepts  of  the  movement  there  was  prominent 
a  woman  of  considerable  position,  a  certain  Agape,  who, 
in  conjunction  with  a  rhetorician  named  Helpidius,  had 
communicated  to  Priscillian,  so  it  was  rumoured,  the 
doctrines  of  a  Gnostic,  Mark  of  Memphis,  an  emigrant 
from  Egypt  to  Spain.  The  Priscillianists  were  not  with- 
out supporters  among  the  episcopal  body.  Two  of  their 
friends,  Instantius  and  Salvian,  had  become  bishops  and 
openly  supported  the  party  ;  Symposius,  Bishop  of  Astorga 
in    Galicia  also  joined   them,  and  soon  the    number   was 


p.  531-2]      COUNCIL  OF  SARAGOSSA  IN  380  421 

reinforced  by  the  adhesion  of  the  Bishop  of  Cordova,  who 
had  changed  his  mind  and  had  finally  convinced  himself 
that  the  new  ascetics  were  in  no  way  dangerous.  It  was 
in  the  Western  provinces,  those  of  Lusitania  and  Galicia, 
that  the  movement  appears  to  have  been  most  definite. 
Ydacius,  Metropolitan  of  Lusitania,  thought  it  his  duty  to 
inform  Pope  Damasus.  The  Pope  replied  in  a  letter 
which  we  no  longer  possess ;  in  this,  foreseeing  that  the 
Spanish  bishops  would  assemble  to  deal  with  the  matter, 
he  advised  them  not  to  deliver  any  personal  condemnation 
in  the  absence  of  those  accused,  and  without  having  heard 
their  explanation.^  A  council  was  actually  held  at 
Saragossa  in  380 ;  we  possess  a  formal  account  of  its 
decisions  divided  into  disciplinary  canons,  which  have  in 
view  the  points  on  which  complaint  was  made  of  the 
Priscillianists.  Two  bishops  from  Gaul,  Fcegadius  of 
Agen  and  Delphinus  of  Bordeaux,  took  part  in  its  meet- 
ings and  signed  first.  With  them  were  ten  Spanish 
prelates,  one  of  whom,  Symposius,  was  favourable  to  the 
innovators. 

The  latter,  meanwhile,  not  being  attacked  by  any 
direct  condemnation,"  suffered  their  adversaries  to  say 
what  they  pleased,  and  continued  their  propaganda.  They 
even  assumed  the  offensive.  The  bishopric  of  Avila,  in 
Ydacius'  province,  having  become  vacant,  they  secured  the 
election  of  Priscillian  there,  and  tried  in  other  places  to 
obtain  colleagues  who  shared  their  opinions.  Accusa- 
tions were  laid  against  Ydacius ;  and  these  excited  great 
scandal  in  the  Church  of  Emerita.  Priscillian  and  his 
two  friends  entertained  the  charges,  denounced  Ydacius  to 
the    Spanish   episcopate,  and    even   went   to   Emerita   to 

^  "  Ne  quid  in  absentes  et  inauditos  decerneretur "  {PrtscilL, 
Treatise  ii.,  p.  35). 

2  Sulpicius  .Severus  {Chron.  ii.  47)  says  in  so  many  words  that  the 
council  condemned  the  Bishops  Instantius  and  Salvian,  as  well  as  the 
laymen  Helpidius  and  Priscillian.  But  this  is  refuted  by  the  account 
which  the  latter  has  left  of  this  stage  of  the  business.  However,  it  is 
possible  that  something  of  the  kind  was  attempted,  for  a  rumour  of 
the  condemnation  was  circulated  in  Spain  {Priscill.,  Treatise  ii., 
p.  40). 


422  IN  THE  DAYS  OF  ST  AMBROSE      [on  xv 

declare  themselves  openly  against  him.  There  was  already 
talk  of  a  new  council.  Ydacius  took  the  initiative ;  and, 
thanks  to  the  support  of  Ambrose,  whose  sympathy  he 
had  managed  to  win,  he  obtained  from  the  emperor  a 
rescript,  couched  in  general  terms,  against  "  the  false 
bishops  and  the  Manicheans."  He  prepared  to  make 
use  of  this  against  his  opponents,  although  they  were  not 
mentioned  by  name  in  the  rescript.  Priscillian  and  his 
two  colleagues,  uneasy  at  the  turn  which  affairs  were  taking, 
made  their  way  in  person  to  Milan,  furnished  with  letters 
testimonial  from  their  clergy  and  flocks,  to  prove  that 
they  were  true  bishops ;  as  to  the  accusation  of  Mani- 
cheism,  they  would  be  able  to  get  rid  of  that  by  the 
language  they  adopted.  The  imperial  Quaestor  listened 
to  them  and  answered  them  kindly ;  but  Ambrose 
remained  ill-disposed  to  them :  no  settlement  was  arrived 
at.  They  pushed  on  to  Rome,  and  sent  to  Pope 
Damasus  a  memorial  of  justification,  which  we  still  possess. 
Damasus  refused  to  receive  them.  One  of  them,  Salvian, 
died  in  Rome.  Instantius  and  Priscillian  returned  to 
Milan,  where,  in  spite  of  Ambrose's  opposition,  they 
succeeded  in  obtaining,  through  Macedonius,  the  Master 
of  the  Offices,  a  decree  with  which  they  returned  to  Spain, 
and  reinstalled  themselves  in  their  bishoprics. 

The  Bishop  of  Emerita  had  now  to  act  with  energy. 
In  his  campaign  against  the  Priscillianists  he  had  enlisted 
the  assistance  of  his  colleague  of  Ossonova,  Ithacius,  who 
claimed  to  have  been  commissioned  by  the  Council  of 
Saragossa  to  follow  this  matter  up.  Ithacius  was  by  no 
means  a  model  prelate  ;  he  was  worldly,  luxurious,  shame- 
less, addicted  to  the  pleasures  of  the  table,  just  the  kind  of 
person,  in  fact,  to  be  obnoxious  to  holy  people.  Priscillian 
set  the  proconsul  Volventius  in  motion  against  him,  and 
the  latter,  on  an  accusation  of  attempting  to  disturb  the 
public  peace,  was  about  to  take  steps  against  Ithacius 
when  he  succeeded  in  escaping  to  Gaul.  There  he  was 
warmly  welcomed  by  the  praetorian  prefect.  This  high 
official,  whose  name  was  Gregory,  was  taking  steps  to  call 
the  matter  before  his  own  tribunal,  when  a  new  rescript 


p.  534]  THE  ADVENT  OF  MAXIMUS  423 

arrived  from  Milan,  due,  like  the  preceding  one,  to  the 
friendly  intervention  of  Macedonius.  This  time,  the 
decision  was  ordered  to  be  given  in  Spain  ;  the  case  was 
referred  to  the  Vicarius  of  this  "  diocese  " ;  and  an  order 
was  given  for  the  banishment  of  Ithacius  beyond  the 
Pyrenees.  The  Bishop  of  Ossonova  found  himself  in  a 
most  critical  situation  ;  he  vanished  from  the  scene. 

It  was  the  best  thing  he  could  have  done.  At 
that  very  moment,  Maximus  was  declaring  himself 
emperor  in  the  island  of  Britain ;  shortly  afterwards  he 
landed  in  Gaul ;  Gratian,  deserted  by  his  troops,  was 
killed  at  Lyon  on  August  25,  383.  The  "tyrant"  made 
his  entry  into  Treves,  and  his  authority  was  recognized 
from  the  Ocean  to  the  Alps. 

It  was  a  disaster  for  the  Priscillianists.  Their  friends 
in  Milan  could  no  longer  avail  at  the  new  court  at  Treves.^ 
The  bishop  of  that  place,  Britto  by  name,  had  been  a 
helper  of  Ithacius ;  he  lent  him  support  with  the  new 
emperor.  Maximus  naturally  desired  to  make  himself 
popular,  especially  with  the  bishops,  whose  influence  over 
the  people  he  knew.  He  had  practised  every  sort  of 
cajolery  with  St  Martin.  Ithacius  profited  by  these 
inclinations,  and  persuaded  Maximus  to  regard  his 
adversaries  as  the  most  dangerous  of  evil-doers.  The 
leaders  of  the  Spanish  movement  were  invited  to  appear 
before  a  council  assembled  at  Bordeaux.  Ithacius  there 
assumed  the  part  of  accuser ;  the  document  which  he 
presented  against  his  adversaries  was  long  preserved. ^ 
The  accused  replied  in  the  same  manner :  Tiberianus, 
Asarbus,  and  several  others  read  a  defence ;  we  still 
possess  that  of  Priscillian  and  of  Instantius.^  The 
tribunal  showed  itself  unfavourable  to  them  :  Instantius 
was  deposed  from  the  episcopate.  They  were  about  to 
turn   to    Priscillian,  when    he  conceived  the  fatal  idea  of 

^  Macedonius,  besides,  had  fallen  into  disgrace  (Paulinus,  Vt/a 
Ambr.  37).     He  was  not  a  friend  of  Ambrose. 

,  '^  Isidore,  Z>^  7//rz J  ill.  15.  It  was  undoubtedly  from  this  source 
that  Sulpicius  Severus  obtained  the  information  which  he  relates  as 
to  Mark  of  Memphis  as  the  master  of  Priscillian. 

■'  Prist'ilUani  tract.  \ 


424  IN  THE  DAYS  OF  ST  AMBROSE      [ch.  xv. 

appealing  to  the  imperial  tribunal.  The  bishops  con- 
sented,^ and  the  trial  was  transferred  to  Treves. 

The  Galilean  episcopate  at  that  time  showed  no 
enthusiasm  for  asceticism  ;  and  the  Priscillianist  bishops, 
compromised  as  they  were  by  the  disputes  to  which 
they  had  given  rise  in  Spain,  had  against  them,  besides 
suspicions  more  or  less  clearly  defined,  the  distrustful 
attitude  of  the  two  great  ecclesiastical  authorities  of  the 
West — Pope  Damasus  and  Bishop  Ambrose.  Their  pro- 
paganda was  considered  dangerous  ;  it  had  already  made 
inroads  into  Aquitaine.  In  the  district  of  Bordeaux, 
a  great  lady,  Euchrotia,  and  her  daughter  Procula,"  lent  it 
substantial  patronage.  The  faithful  of  Eauze,  so  it  was 
complained,  had  embraced  Priscillianism  in  a  body.  Such 
circumstances  as  these  produced  a  state  of  opinion  which 
was  not  of  a  character  to  enlist  for  the  innovators  the 
sympathies  of  the  new  government. 

Supported  by  his  metropolitan  Ydacius,  the  Bishop  of 
Ossonova  played  once  more  at  Treves,  before  the  criminal 
magistrate,  the  part  of  accuser.  Now  that  he  felt  himself 
the  stronger,  he  adopted  a  high  tone  ;  it  was  not  only 
against  the  Priscillianists  that  he  inveighed  ;  every  form  of 
asceticism  was  detestable  to  him.  He  even  found  fault 
with  St  Martin  and  attempted  to  accuse  him  of  heresy. 
Martin,  on  his  side,  besought  Ithacius  to  abandon  a  hateful 
part,  and  protested  to  the  emperor  against  the  intervention 
of  a  criminal  judge  in  a  question  of  doctrine.  "  No 
shedding  of  blood ! "  he  said,  "  Ecclesiastical  penalties, 
such  as  deposition,  are  quite  enough."  Maximus  finally 
promised  him  that  no  extreme  measures  should  be  taken. 
And  therewith  St  Martin  departed.  Freed  from  his 
presence,  the  bishops  resumed  their  unhallowed  work ; 
two  of  them,  Magnus  and  Rufus,  succeeded  in  converting 
the  emperor  once  more  to  their  opinion.     An  enquiry  was 

1  There  were  involved  in  the  matter  accusations  belonging  to 
the  ordinary  criminal  lavi',  which  were  not  within  ecclesiastical 
jurisdiction. 

^  With  regard  to  Procula,  Sulpicius  Severus  does  wrong  in 
relating  a  petty  story  which  is  improbable  and  incapable  of 
verification  {Chron.  ii.  48). 


p.  536-7]       EXECUTION  OF  PRISCILLIAN  425 

decided  upon  ;  it  was  entrusted  to  the  praetorian  prefect, 
Euodius/  a  harsh  and  severe  man,  who  succeeded  in 
convicting  Priscillian  of  witchcraft.  He  made  his  report 
to  the  emperor,  and  Maximus  decided  that  the  accused 
deserved  the  penalty  of  death. 

The  trial  was  formally  resumed.  It  was  not  without 
difficulty  that  they  succeeded  at  last  in  tearing  Ithacius 
away  from  the  accusers'  bench.  Priscillian  was  condemned 
to  death  and  executed  with  six  others,  the  deacons  Asarbius 
and  Aurelius  ;  then  Felicissimus  and  Armenius,  who  had 
quite  recently  joined  the  sect;  finally,  Latronianus,  a 
distinguished  poet,-  and  the  matron  Euchrotia.  Bishop 
Instantius  escaped  with  sentence  of  exile,  as  did  also  the 
rhetorician  Tiberianus  ^  ;  they  were  banished  to  the  Scilly 
Isles. 

The  affair  did  not  end  there.  A  military  commission  was 
appointed  to  go  to  Spain,  with  instructions  to  seek  out  the 
accomplices  of  Priscillian  on  the  spot,  and  to  try  them 
summarily.  Such  atrocities  filled  all  good  people  with 
loathing.  Against  the  feeling  of  the  majority  of  the  bishops, 
one  of  their  number,  Theognis,  ventured  to  excommunicate 
Ithacius.  Martin  returned  to  Treves.  Bishop  Britto  had 
just  died  ;  his  colleagues  assembled  to  choose  his  successor  ; 
the  choice  had  fallen  upon  a  certain  Felix,  who  was 
personally  of  good  repute.  On  his  arrival  at  the  imperial 
Court,  Martin  refused  to  hold  communion  with  the  bishops, 
amongst  whom  he  saw  the  blood-stained  Ithacius.  The 
latter  tried  hard  to  compromise  Martin  along  with  the 
condemned,  but  it  was  not  possible  for  him  so  to  deceive 
the  emperor.     Martin  never  ceased  to  protest  against  the 

1  /j-(Euodius)  Priscillianmn  gemino  iudicio  audituni  cotivictumque 
malejkii  nee  diffitefiteyn  obscenis  se  studuisse  doetrinis,  noetumos  etiam 
turpiutn  feminarum  egisse  conventus  nudumque  orare  solitum 
nocentem  pronuntiavit  (Sulpicius  Severus,  Chron.  ii.  50),  The  crime 
of  witchcraft  by  itself  was  a  capital  crime.  For  the  rest  we  must 
remember  that  all  extreme  doctrines  easily  become  obscenae,  and 
women  turpes,  when  malevolence  is  concerned  in  the  matter  ;  the 
nudus  orare  might  have  been  a  form  of  asceticism.  Besides,  none  of 
this  was  any  concern  of  a  secular  judge. 

'^  Jerome,  De  viris,  122.  ^  Ibid.  123. 


426  IN  THE  DAYS  OF  ST  AMBROSE      [ch  xv. 

blood  which  had  been  shed,  and  to  demand  that  there  a 
stay  should  be  finally  made,  and  that  the  tribunes  should 
not  be  sent  to  Spain.  He  absolutely  refused  on  any 
consideration  to  listen  to  any  proposal  for  entering  into 
communion  with  those  who  were  already  beginning  to 
be  called  the  Ithacians.  He  yielded,  however,  when  he 
was  given  the  choice  between  his  participation  in  the 
ordination  of  Felix  and  the  immediate  despatch  of  the 
commissioners.  But  to  the  end  of  his  life  he  lamented 
this  necessity  of  interrupting  for  a  moment  his  protest 
against  the  blood  which  had  been  shed. 

He  was  not  the  only  one  to  protest.  The  new  Pope 
Siricius  seems  certainly  to  have  asked  for  explanations, 
for  we  find  Maximus  in  a  hurry  to  offer  them,  by  pre- 
tending to  liken  the  Priscillianists  to  the  Manicheans, 
which  made  them  fall  under  the  penalties  of  extremely 
severe  laws.  He  also  ordered  all  the  documents  of  the 
trial  to  be  sent  to  the  Pope  to  show  him  that  there  had 
not  been  a  condemnation  of  innocent  men.^  Notwith- 
standing these  explanations,  Siricius  did  as  St  Martin  had 
done,  and  refused  communion  with  himself  to  the  supporters 
of  Ithacius.  Ambrose  adopted  the  same  attitude.-  This 
was  plainly  to  be  seen  when  he  visited  Treves,  in  387, 
as  ambassador  from  Valentinian  H.  He  presented  him- 
self at  the  Court  of  Maximus,  but  not  at  the  Church  of 
Felix,  as  he  did  not  wish  to  have  any  relations  with  bishops 
"  who  had  demanded  the  death  of  the  heretics." 

But  Ambrose,  as  the  representative  of  a  prince  against 
whom  armed  preparations  were  already  being  made  in 
the  Gauls,  was  not  in  a  position  to  put  a  stop  to  the 
severities  ordered  at  Treves.  The  pursuit  of  Priscillianists 
continued.  On  his  journey  home,  the  Bishop  of  Milan 
met  an  old  man,  who  was  being  led  into  exile ;  it  was  his 
colleague  of  Cordova,  Hyginus,  the  man  who,  having  first 
denounced  the  Priscillianists,  had  ended  by  showing  them 
goodwill.  In  vain  Ambrose  entreated  that  at  least 
respect    should    be   shown    to   his    age,   that    he    should 

1  Coll.  Avell.  n.  40. 

■-'  Council  of  Turin,  c.  6.     Cf.  Ambrose,  Ep.  36. 


p.  539]  THE  REACTION  427 

be  given  proper  clothing  and  other  necessaries.  He 
was  rebuffed. 

As  long  as  Maximus  lasted,  i.e.,  until  the  summer  of 
388,  the  Priscillianists  continued  to  be  harassed,  and  the 
ascetics  in  general  to  be  looked  upon  with  suspicion.  It 
was  not  wise,  at  that  time,  to  appear  with  a  face  emaciated 
by  fasting,  or  to  devote  one's  nights  to  pious  reading.  The 
worldly  prelates — Ithacius  at  their  head — were  on  the 
alert  and  suppressed  devotion.  But  all  this  was  changed 
when  Valentinian  H.  was  restored  in  388.  There  was  a 
reaction  as  well  ;  and  Ithacius  v/as  attacked.  In  vain  he 
protested  that  he  had  not  been  the  only  one  to  take 
proceedings  against  Priscillian :  his  former  accomplices 
made  haste  to  desert  him,  and  suffered  him  to  be  deposed 
from  the  episcopate.  Ydacius  of  Emerita,  his  Metropolitan, 
had  not  waited  for  this,  but  had  sent  in  his  resignation. 
Unfortunately  for  him  he  changed  his  mind,  and  wished 
to  return  to  his  Church,  which  gave  rise  to  disturbances. 
The  government  imprisoned  the  two  bishops  at  Naples.^ 

However,  the  friends  of  those  who  had  been  put  to 
death  obtained  permission  to  give  them  honourable  burial. 
The  remains  of  the  Priscillianist  leaders  were  transported 
to  Spain,  and  buried  with  the  greatest  pomp,  amid  the 
enthusiasm  of  their  followers.  In  Gaul,  Priscillianism 
retained  adherents  in  certain  parts  of  Aquitaine  ;  but 
the  most  serious  consequence  of  the  whole  affair  was  the 
discord  it  introduced  among  the  bishops.  Felix  of  Treves, 
ordained  by  the  Ithacians,  possessed  the  sympathies  of 
the  prelates  who  were  hostile  to  asceticism.  The  others, 
without  having  any  objection  to  him  personally,  avoided 
him  as  though  he  had  the  plague.  It  would  have  been 
better  for  him  if  he  had  been  exiled,  like  the  bishops  of 
Emerita  and  Ossonova.  In  his  own  country,  party-spirit 
had  transformed  him  into  a  scapegoat  ;  the  blood  of 
Euchrotia  and  of  Priscillian  appeared   to    many  eyes  to 

'  Ithacius  {Ithacius  Clarus)  seems  certainly  to  have  written, 
besides  the  memorandum  aheady  mentioned,  a  treatise  on  Arianism, 
in  which  he  refuted  an  Arian  deacon  named  Varimadus  (Migne,  P.  A., 
vol.  Ixii.,  p.  351). 


428  IN  THE  DAYS  OF  ST  AMBROSE      [ch.  xv. 

stain  his  episcopal  mantle,  and  could  never  be  removed. 
Siricius  and  Ambrose^  would  have  nothing  to  do  with 
him  ;  they  had  declared  in  express  terms,  by  letter,  that 
people  must  choose  between  communion  with  them  and 
with  him.2  The  schism  was  still  existing  in  396,  for  it 
was  with  the  main  object  of  remedying  it  that  there  was 
held,  in  that  year,  a  great  council  at  Nimes^;  and  in  401, 
just  when  Sulpicius  Severus,  who  complains  bitterly  about 
it,  was  finishing  his  Chronicle.  Several  years  later  the 
Italian  Council,  assembled  at  Turin,  repeated  the  con- 
demnation. The  quarrel  was  only  stilled  with  the  death 
of  the  unhappy  Felix. 

Of  course  political  matters  played  their  part  in  this 
affair,  and  the  Ithacians  had  to  suffer  for  having  been 
protected  by  Maximus.  In  389,  the  rhetorician  Pacatus 
Drepanius,  an  envoy  from  the  Gauls  to  Theodosius, 
pronounced  before  that  prince  and  before  the  Roman 
senate  a  panegyric  in  which  the  execution  of  the  Friscillian- 
ists,  especially  of  the  matron  Euchrotia,  figured  among  the 
crimes  of  the  usurper.  With  what  were  these  people 
reproached  ?  For  being  too  pious :  nimia  religio  et 
diligent ius  culta  divijiitas.  It  was  for  that  reason  they 
were  persecuted,  and  by  informers  who  were  priests  only 
in  name,  and  whom  men  saw,  not  without  feelings  of 
horror,  pass  from  the  trials  by  torture  to  sacred 
ceremonies.* 

In  Spain,  the  reaction  against  Maximus  had  very 
different  consequences.  Priscillian  became  a  demi-god ; 
his  followers  now  swore  only  by  his  name.  It  was 
especially  in  Galicia,  where,  apparently,  his  tomb  was 
situated,  that  the  enthusiasm  of  his  disciples  broke  forth. 
The  anniversary  of  the  new  martyrs  was  celebrated,  their 

^  The  matter  appears  to  have  been  investigated  in  a  council  at 
Milan,  held  in  390,  propter  adventum  Gallorum  episcoporum 
(Ambrose,  Ep.  51). 

^  Council  of  Turin,  c.  6. 

^  Upon  the  Council  of  Nimes,  besides  the  Synodal  Letter 
(Hefele,  Conciliengeschichte,  vol.  ii.,  p.  62),  see  Sulpicius  Severus, 
Dial.  i.  13. 

^  Pacatus,  Paneg.  29. 


p.  541-2]    THEODOSIUS  AND  PRISCILLIANISM     429 

books  were  eagerly  read,  and  their  doctrines  openly 
preached.  Several  bishops  joined  the  movement,  some 
from  conviction,  others  because  they  were  forced  to  do 
so,  that  they  might  not  offend  their  fanatical  people. 
The  most  important  among  them  was  Symposius  of 
Astorga,  the  bishop  who  had  been  present  at  the  Council 
of  Saragossa ;  with  him  were  Vegentinus,  Herenas,  and 
some  others  as  well.  As  soon  as  a  bishop  died,  the  people 
acclaimed  a  Priscillianist  candidate.  Symposius,  who  was 
apparently  the  senior  or  the  metropolitan  of  the  province, 
lent  his  co-operation  for  the  ordination.  Thus  he 
consecrated  Paternus  in  the  important  town  of  Bracara 
Augusta  (Braga) ;  other  bishops,  such  as  Isonius,  Donatus, 
Acurius,  yEmilius,  and  his  own  son,  Dictinius,  received 
imposition  of  hands  from  him.  These  comprised  almost 
the  whole  episcopate  of  Galicia  ^ ;  the  province  seemed 
lost  to  orthodoxy. 

Such  a  scandal  could  not  last  long.  It  excited  no 
doubt  the  attention  of  Theodosius  who,  having  been 
born  in  Galicia,  could  not  fail  to  take  an  interest  in  his 
native  country.  The  bishops  of  the  other  provinces 
assembled  at  Saragossa,-  and  afterwards  at  Toledo,  and 
summoned  their  Priscillianist  colleagues  to  appear  before 
them.  They  refused.  In  the  interval  between  the  two 
councils,  Symposius  and  Dictinius,  who  until  then  had 
only  received  priest's  orders,  travelled  to  Milan,  hoping 
that  Ambrose,  so  severe  to  the  Ithacians,  would  give  them 
some  help.  They  were  deceived.  Ambrose  decided  that 
they  must  condemn  Priscillian  and  his  doctrine ;   and  in 

1  We  do  not  know  at  this  particular  time  of  any  other  orthodox 
bishop  besides  Ortygius  o^  Aquae  Celaenae.  And  even  he  was  driven 
away  by  the  sectaries.  He  was  present  at  the  Council  of  Toledo  in 
4GO,  when  his  restoration  to  his  see  was  determined  upon. 

-  We  must  not  confound  this  new  Council  of  Saragossa  with  that 
of  380,  the  attitude  of  which  obliged  Symposius  and  Dictinius  to 
have  recourse  to  St  Ambrose  and  the  Pope.  The  Pope  at  that  time 
was  Siricius,  and  no  longer  Damasus  ;  among  the  conditions  imposed 
by  St  Ambrose  on  the  two  Galician  bishops  was  a  provision  that 
they  should  erase  Priscillian  and  his  companions  from  the  number 
of  the  Martyrs.     All  this  indicates  a  date  later  than  385. 


430  IN  THE  DAYS  OF  ST  AMBROSE      [cu.  xv. 

return  for  this  they  might  be  received  to  communion  ;  also 
Dictinius  must  give  up  all  idea  of  being  made  a  bishop. 
They  promised  to  comply.  Ambrose  and  Pope  Siricius 
then  wrote  to  the  Spanish  bishops  to  receive  them  on 
the  conditions  agreed  upon.  But  such  conditions  were 
easier  to  accept  in  Milan  than  to  keep  in  Galicia.  On 
his  return  home,  Symposius  attempted  to  remove  the 
name  of  Priscillian  from  the  catalogue  of  the  Martyrs, 
and  Dictinius  pretended  to  refuse  the  episcopate.  But 
the  people  protested ;  and  so  things  were  restored  to  the 
old  footing,  and  letters  from  Dictinius  were  even  soon 
found  in  circulation,  in  which  the  proscribed  observances 
were  more  or  less  justified. 

Ambrose  died  in  397,  and  two  years  afterwards,  Pope 
Siricius  followed  him  to  the  grave.  In  the  following  year, 
the  orthodox  bishops  of  Spain  met  once  more  at  Toledo. 
This  time,  the  prelates  of  Galicia  put  in  an  appearance ; 
the  secular  authority  had  no  doubt  intervened.  The 
situation  was  a  very  complicated  one.  Among  the 
accused,  some  gave  signs  of  repentance ;  they  condemned 
Priscillian,  his  books,  and  his  doctrine,  signed  every 
retractation  which  was  asked  of  them,  declared  that  they 
had  only  sinned  by  mistake,  and  that,  although  their 
opinions  remained  orthodox,  they  had  been  forced  to 
yield  to  the  violence  of  the  people.  Others  declared  that 
Priscillian  was  a  martyr,  the  victim  of  the  jealousy  of 
the  bishops,  and  they  would  never  forsake  him.  Vegentinus 
and  Symposius  were  the  leaders  of  the  first  party  ;  the 
other  rallied  behind  Herenas.  As  to  the  orthodox  party, 
they  were  themselves  greatly  divided  ;  the  bishops  of 
Betica  and  the  district  of  Carthagena  would  not  hear  of 
a  compromise ;  they  demanded  the  deprivation  en  masse 
of  the  whole  Galician  episcopate,  or  at  all  events  that 
they  should  be  put  in  a  state  of  siege.  The  Lusitanians 
and  the  Tarragonese,  though  less  implacable,  were,  never- 
theless, not  greatly  inclined  to  leniency.  After  much 
consideration,  they  began  by  deposing  the  refractory 
bishops — Herenas  at  their  head.  As  to  the  others,  one 
alone    was    admitted    to    communion,   Vegentinus,   who 


V.  544]     PRISCILLIANISiAl  Al^TEll  AMBROSE         431 

appeared  to  have  compromised  himself  least.  The  Bishop 
of  Bracara,  Paternus,  was  allowed  to  enter  into  relations 
with  him  ;  Paternus  was  thus  admitted  by  an  intermediary. 
The  others,  Symposius,  Dictinius,  Isonius,  and  all  those 
in  communion  with  Symposius,  were  invited  to  sign  a 
formula,  and,  if  they  did  so,  they  were  to  be  allowed  to 
retain  their  sees.  But  as  it  was  impossible  to  come  to  an 
understanding  on  the  question  of  what  kind  of  relations 
were  to  be  held  with  them,  it  was  decided  that  the 
question  should  be  referred  to  the  new  Pope,  Anastasius, 
and  to  the  new  Bishop  of  Milan,  Simplicianus.  Until 
their  decision  was  received,  the  reconciled  bishops  were 
to  refrain  from  holding  ordinations.^ 

The  reply  ^  of  the  two  Italian  primates  was  not  long 
delayed  ;  it  was  favourable  to  the  moderate  orthodox 
party  and  to  the  penitent  prelates.  Communion  was 
therefore  re-established  between  them  and  the  rest  of 
the  Catholic  world.  But  there  always  remained  in  Galicia 
a  nucleus  of  unyielding  Priscillianists ;  they  held  their 
ground  there  in  spite  of  the  imperial  laws  which  quickly 
fell  upon  them  ^ ;  and,  moreover,  the  Swabian  invasion 
soon  gave  them  full  liberty.  We  still  hear  of  them 
for  a  long  time  afterwards.  Gradually,  the  cult  of 
Priscillian  was  concentrated  towards  the  extremity  of 
the  province,  in  the  diocese  of  Iria  Flavia,  where  some 
adherents  were  still  to  be  found  towards  the  end  of  the 
6th  century.  It  was  in  this  very  country,  the  last  refuge 
of  Priscillianism,  that  the  Spaniards  in  the  time  of  the 
Asturian  kings  were  to  "  re-discover "  the  tomb  of  the 
Apostle  James,  the  son  of  Zebedee,  and  to  found  a 
celebrated  cult. 

As  to  the  orthodox  bishops,  the  reconciliation  of  the 
Priscillianists  was  to  them  "a  stone  of  stumbling."  The 
prelates   of  Baetica   and  of   the   district   of  Carthagena, 

•  The  document  for  all  this  is  the  Council  of  Toledo  in  400,  the 
record  of  which  has  come  down  to  us  only  in  fragments,  inserted  in 
the  formal  minute  of  another  council  held  in  447.  Cf.  the  Chronicle 
of  Idacius,  under  the  year  399. 

'■^  Presupposed  by  a  letter  of  Pope  Innocent,  Jaflfe,  292. 

^  Cod.  Theod.  xvi.  5,  40,  43,  48. 


432  IN  THE  DAYS  OF  ST  AMBROSE      [ch.  xv. 

irritated  at  the  indulgence  shown  by  the  Italians,  refused 
all  relations  with  those  who  accepted  communion  with 
the  reconciled  party.  The  spirit  of  Gregory  of  Illiberris 
moved  them.  In  vain  did  Pope  Innocent  intervene  i  to 
censure  the  rigorists.  They  paid  no  attention  to  him ; 
their  schism  lasted  until  the  invasion  of  the  barbarians 
in  409. 

Such  is  the  external  history  of  the  Priscillianist  move- 
ment. At  the  present  day,  how  are  we  to  think  precisely 
of  the  doctrine  taught  by  Priscillian  ?  Sulpicius  Severus 
condemns  it  very  harshly,  but  without  explaining  himself. 
He  seems  to  see  in  it  a  species  of  immoral  Gnosticism. 
Since  the  rediscovery  of  several  writings  of  Priscillian, 
it  is  the  custom  to  oppose  them  to  Sulpicius,  and  to 
represent  Priscillian  as  a  mere  preacher  of  asceticism, 
who  can  be  reproached  at  most  only  for  his  taste  for 
apocryphal  writings ;  his  affair  was  merely  an  episode 
in  the  continual  battle  between  an  episcopate  corrupted 
by  worldliness  and  the  ascetic  party.  I  cannot  accept 
such  a  vindication.  Undoubtedly,  no  heretical  thesis  is 
maintained  in  the  writings  of  Priscillian  which  have 
come  down  to  us.  But  it  is  well  to  remember  that 
this  literature  is  composed  of  three  memoirs  of  self- 
justification,  written  for  presentation  to  the  ecclesiastical 
authorities,  and  of  a  few  sermons  preached  to  the 
faithful  of  Avila,  at  a  time  when  the  teaching  of  Priscillian 
was  already  looked  upon  with  suspicion,  and  could  scarcely 
have  been  exposed  to  the  public.^  It  is  not  in  compositions 
of  this  kind  that  we  can  expect  to  find  definite  heresies. 
The  author,  it  is  true,  declares  repeatedly  that  he  con- 
demns all  heresies — the  Ophites,  the  Nicolaitans,  the 
Patripassians,  the  Manicheans,  etc. ;  but  his  anathemas 
always  avoid  the  real  point  of  the  matter.  Thus,  for 
example,   he   sees    in    Manicheism    only   the   worship   of 

1  Jaffe,  292. 

2  What  are  called  the  Canones  Prisctlliajtt  were  already  known  ; 
these  are  a  sort  of  exposition  of  Christian  doctrine  in  ninety  articles, 
with  a  note  of  the  texts  from  St  Paul  which  prove  them.  But  we 
have  only  an  orthodox  recension  of  them  due  to  a  bishop  called 
Peregrinus. 


p.  547]  PRISCIIJ.IANIST  DOCTRINE  433 

the  sun  and  moon  ;  and  the  Patripassians  are  for  him 
people  who  could  not  discover  in  the  Gospel  any  mention 
of  the  Son  of  God.  A  man  must  be  a  mere  tiro  in 
investigation,  if  he  allows  himself  to  be  taken  in  by  such 
anathemas.  Ambrose,  Damasus,  and  Martin,  persons 
whom  no  one  would  rank  among  the  enemies  of  asceticism, 
regarded  Priscillian  with  mistrust.  The  reception  which 
they  gave  to  the  Spanish  mystics  is  in  this  respect 
very  significant,  even  though  we  do  not  quite  understand 
what  exactly  they  reproached  them  with.  It  is  certain 
that  it  was  not  easy  for  them  to  be  enlightened.  The 
sect  was  a  very  mysterious  one ;  it  was,  not  merely 
from  the  time  when  it  had  to  endure  suffering  but  from  the 
outset,  a  secret  society.  In  the  meetings  of  the  initiated 
clearly  things  were  said  which  it  was  not  considered 
proper  to  entrust  to  ordinary  believers,  even  to  ascetics 
of  the  old  type.  More  than  this,  the  Priscillianists 
admitted  that  they  lied  to  disguise  the  doctrines 
of  their  sect.  Dictinius,  before  his  conversion,  had 
composed  a  treatise  called  "  The  Scale  "  {Libra),  in  which 
is  explained  the  theory  of  useful  lying.^  People  do  not 
take  so  many  precautions  unless  there  is  something  to 
conceal. 

It  is  certain  also  that  the  Priscillianist  initiates — 
like  the  Valentinian  "  pneumatici "  and  the  Manichean 
"elect" — formed,  according  to  the  views  of  the  sect,  a 
class  superior  to  the  rest  of  the  faithful.  They  alone 
possessed  the  fulness  of  the  doctrine  and  perfection  of  life. 
The  latter  was  realized  in  asceticism,  an  asceticism 
resting  on  a  dualistic  basis.  In  man  there  is  an  element 
which  is  divine  in  the  proper  sense  of  the  word  ;  by 
this  element  God  and  man  are  of  the  same  nature.- 
The  world  is  the  work  of  another  principle.  It 
was  in  vain  that  Priscillian  condemned  Patripassianism  ; 
the    doctrine   of  the    Filius  innascibilis,  professed   by  his 

1  St   Augustine   speaks  of  it  at  great  length  in  his  book  Contra 
mendaciiwi. 

2  Dictinius,  at  the  council  in  400,  expressly  admitted  that  he  had 
held  that  doctrine. 

II  2  E 


434  IN  THE  DAYS  OF  ST  AMBROSE      [cH.  xv 

disciples/  presupposes  a  Trinity  purely  nominal ;  and 
I  do  not  see  in  what  other  sense  we  can  interpret  the 
formula  tres  unum  sunt  in  Chrtsto  Jesu,  which  appears 
in  one  of  his  apologies. 

It  is  not  without  reason  that  the  first  persons  who 
have  described  Priscillianism  have  presented  it  as  a  form 
of  asceticism  inspired  by  Gnostic  ideas.  It  is  thus  that 
it  is  spoken  of  by  Philastrius  of  Bresica^  shortly  after 
the  events  at  Treves.  St  Jerome  in  392  had  not  yet 
studied  the  question  for  himself.^  He  only  knew  that 
Priscillian  had  left  certain  writings;  that  some  persons 
represented  him  a  Gnostic,  and  others  defended  him 
from  that  error.^  Very  little  was  then  known  of  the 
Councils  of  Saragossa  and  Bordeaux,  in  which  the  questions 
of  doctrine  must  have  been  discussed.  The  sect  still 
kept  its  books  secret. 

But  it  did  not  always  do  so.  Orosiusand  St  Augustine 
were  acquainted  with  them  ^ ;  the  extracts  which  they 
give  from  them  and  the  information  which  they  derive 
from  them  agree  entirely  with  the  idea  of  an  ascetic 
Gnosticism.  Little  by  little  opinion  gained  in  precision 
in  regard  to  them.  Direct  study  came  to  strengthen 
the  impression  left  by  the  proceedings  of  the  Council 
of  Toledo,  and  by  the  recantation  which  it  secured  from 
several  Priscillianist  leaders.  It  would  be  vain  to  allege 
a  development  in  doctrine,  presumably  produced  in  the 
sect  after  the  death  of  its  founder.     The  bishops  Symposius 

^  Symposius,  at  the  same  council,  repudiated  the  doctrine  of  the 
two  principles,  and  that  of  the  Filius  innascibilis,  but  admitted  that 
they  were  accepted  in  the  sect. 

2  Haer.  84.  ^  De  viris,  121. 

*  Several  years  afterwards,  about  399,  St  Jerome,  writing  to  a 
noble  Spanish  lady,  takes  sides  definitely  against  Priscillian  ;  but 
he  does  not  seem  to  have  studied  his  doctrine  very  deeply.  What 
he  says  of  it  refers  only  to  the  memoir  of  Ithacius  ;  and  in  regard 
to  this  he  makes  a  strange  blunder,  confusing  Mark  of  Memphis,  of 
whom  Ithacius  speaks,  with  Mark  the  Gnostic,  a  contemporary 
of  St  IrenEeus.  Jerome,  Ep.  Ixxv.  5  ;  cf.  Adv.  Vigilantium,  7,  and 
In  Esaiam,  Ixiv.  5. 

'•^  See  the  Cotmnonitorium  of  Orosius,  and  the  reply  of  St 
Augustine,  P.  Z.,  vol.  xlii.,  p.  665  et  seq. 


p.  549]  POSITION  OF  ST  AMBROSE  435 

and  Dictinius  who  abjured  in  400  were  not  recent  initiates  ; 
there  is  nothing  to  prove  that  their  Priscillianism  differed 
in  any  respect  whatsoever  from  that  of  Priscillian  himself. 

In  fact,  horrible  as  the  executions  at  Treves  were, 
and  strongly  as  they  have  been  condemned  in  the  Church, 
it  was  impossible  for  the  Church  to  recognize  its  own 
traditions  in  the  religious  system  of  the  victims. 

Ambrose  at  Milan  was,  for  the  whole  of  the  West, 
a  kind  of  oracle  ;  even  in  the  East  his  was  a  power  to 
be  reckoned  with.  He  was  truly  the  sacerdos  magnus  of 
the  Bible,  the  "  gran  prete "  of  the  poet.  A  Roman 
by  birth,  by  tradition,  and  by  education,  government 
was  natural  to  him.  He  governed  the  Church  fearlessly,  as 
he  would,  had  need  been,  have  governed  the  State.  Bishop 
of  the  Latin  capital,  he  had  the  emperor  within  reach  of  his 
exhortations.  And  all  went  well  in  that  quarter  so  long 
as  Gratian  lived.  That  amiable  prince  was  to  him  an 
obedient  son.  War,  the  chase,  and  State  affairs  did  not 
prevent  him  from  taking  an  interest  in  matters  of  religion. 
He  plied  Ambrose  with  questions,  and  the  bishop, 
absorbed  as  he  too  was  by  many  cares  foreign  to  pure 
speculation,  was  called  upon  to  find  time  to  write  whole 
treatises  of  theology  ^  for  the  information  of  his  imperial 
disciple. 

It  was  a  terrible  blow  for  Ambrose,  when  he  heard 
that  Gratian,  forsaken  by  the  army  of  the  Gauls,  had  been 
treacherously  assassinated.  To  regret  for  the  loss  of  the 
young  and  sympathetic  emperor  were  added  grave  fears 
alike  for  the  empire  and  for  orthodox  religion.  Now,  it 
was  with  Valentinian  II.  that  he  would  have  to  deal,  or 
rather  with  his  mother,  Justina,  the  friend  and  patroness 
of  the  Arians.  However,  at  first,  Justina  had  more 
serious  anxieties  than  that  for  the  Creed  of  Ariminum. 
Ambrose  saw  her  come  to  him  with  her  son,  a  child  of 
twelve  years  old ;  she  put  the  child  forward  and  placed 
him  in  his  arms.  The  bishop  promised  to  go  over  the 
mountains  to  negotiate  with  Maximus,  and  to  save  what 

^  Treatises,  Dejide,  De  Spiritu  Sancto,  De  incamattonfs  dominicae 
Sacramento. 


436  IN  THE  DAYS  OF  ST  AMBROSE       [ch.  xv. 

could  still  be  saved.  Maximus  just  then  showed  himself 
in  a  very  haughty  mood ;  and  the  negotiations  were 
somewhat  stormy.  However,  they  came  to  an  under- 
standing at  last ;  the  envoys  of  Valentinian  H.  consented  to 
recognize  the  usurper,  who,  for  his  part,  promised  not  to 
cross  the  Alps. 

On  his  return  to  Milan,  Ambrose  had  at  first  no  cause 
for  anything  but  satisfaction  with  the  court.  He  was 
energetically  supported  in  his  dispute  with  Symmachus 
(384)  in  the  matter  of  the  altar  of  Victory,  But,  in  the 
following  year  (385),  the  Arian  question  came  forward 
again,  and  relations  became  gravely  strained.  There  had 
remained  at  Milan,  ever  since  the  time  of  Auxentius, 
several  persons  who  were  attached  to  the  confession  of 
Ariminum,  including  even  some  clerics,  although  the  new 
bishop  had  been  wise  enough  to  accept  en  bloc  the 
ecclesiastical  personnel  of  his  predecessor.  Ursinus,  the 
pretender  to  the  see  of  Rome,  had  made  use  of  these  people 
to  stir  up  scandal  against  Ambrose^;  an  unattached 
Pannonian  Bishop,  Julianus  Valens,  busied  himself  in  the 
same  quarters,  at  Milan  and  in  the  neighbouring  towns. 
He  had  been  ordained  at  Pettau  (Poetovio)  by  the  Arian 
party,  in  opposition  to  Mark,  the  Catholic  bishop  of  that 
place.  When  the  Goths  showed  themselves  upon  the 
Upper  Drave,  Valens  put  himself  on  their  side  and  helped 
them  to  make  themselves  masters  of  his  episcopal  city. 
He  had  made  himself  half  a  Goth,  and  wore  a  necklace 
and  bracelets,  in  the  manner  of  the  barbarians.  The  city 
was  pillaged,  but  the  people  of  Pettau  continued  to  refuse 
to  have  anything  to  do  with  Valens,  and  he  was  obliged  to 
take  his  departure.'-  Peace  was  concluded  with  the  Goths 
in  382  :  many  of  them  then  gained  a  footing  in  Court 
circles ;  the  army  was  recruited  more  and  more  from 
among  the  barbarians ;  their  leaders  attained  the  highest 
dignities.  All  this  tended  to  form  round  the  empress  an 
Arian    circle   which   was    a   cause    of   much   anxiety   to 

1  Ambrose,  Ep.  1 1  ;  see  above,  p.  370. 

2  Ambrose,  Ep.  12.  This  letter  and  the  preceding  one  are  written 
in  the  name  of  the  Council  of  Aquileia  (381). 


p.  552]  AUXENTIUS  OF  DOROSTORUIM  437 

Ambrose.  It  became  still  more  so  when  circumstances 
provided  the  party  with  a  religious  leader,  in  the  person 
of  a  second  Auxentius.  This  man,  I  think,  must  be 
identified  with  Auxentius,  the  Arian  Bishop  of  Doro- 
storum  on  the  Lower  Danube.^  He  was  a  disciple  of 
Ulfilas,  and  had  even  written  the  Life  of  that  famous 
personage.  If  he  was  to  be  found  at  the  Court  of  Milan, 
it  was  no  doubt  because  the  determined  attitude  of 
Theodosius  would  not  allow  a  prelate  who  was  notoriously 
Arian  to  continue  to  exercise  his  office  in  the  Eastern 
Empire.-  Auxentius  wished  to  have  a  church  of  his  own  ; 
the  Court  asked  Ambrose  for  the  Portian  Basilica  (St 
Victor  ad  corpus),  which  was  situated  outside  the  walls. 
Ambrose  refused.  The  demand  was  pressed  ;  it  was  even 
proposed,  at  one  time,  to  take  from  him  the  new  Basilica, 
i.e.,  one  of  the  buildings  of  his  own  cathedral.^ 

The  Feast  of  Easter  (385)  was  approaching.  The 
emperor  caused  the  Portian  Basilica  to  be  seized,  and  then, 
in  face  of  the  attitude  of  the  bishop  and  the  people, 
relinquished  his  design.'*  This  defeat  exasperated  the 
Court  extremely.  Auxentius  took  advantage  of  this 
fact  to  obtain  a  law  granting  the  right  of  meeting  to 
the  faithful  who  adhered  to  the  Creed  of  Ariminum  ;  the 
opposing  party,  viz.,  the  Catholics,  thus  suffered  a 
severe  rebuke.''  On  the  other  hand  we  find  Maximus 
intervening    in    the    matter — Maximus,   the    usurper    of 

1  See  below,  Chapter  XVII. 

^  I  am  not  aware  that  this  identification  of  Auxentius  of  Dorostorum 
with  the  Auxentius  of  Milan — the  contemporary  of  St  Ambrose — has 
been  made  before.  Ambrose  says  {Serino  cojitra  Aux.  22)  that  he 
came  from  Scythia,  where  he  was  called  Mercurinus.  Dorostorum 
was  in  Lower  Moesia,  but  on  the  frontier  between  that  province  and 
that  of  Scythia. 

^  There  were  at  this  time  in  Milan  two  cathedral  basilicas  ;  the 
ancient  church,  which  was  preserved  down  to  the  i6th  century, 
bore  the  name  of  St  Thecla  :  it  was  demolished  in  1 548  to  enlarge 
the  piazza  of  the  Duomo  ;  the  other  was  quite  new  in  the  time  of  St 
Ambrose  ;  it  was  the  predecessor  of  the  present  cathedral. 

*  All  this  is  related,  with  profuse  detail,  in  a  letter  of  Ambrose  to 
his  sister  Marcellina  {Ep.  20). 

'"'  Cod.  Theod.  xvi.  i,  3. 


438  IN  THE  DAYS  OF  ST  AMBROSE      [ch.  xv. 

Gaul,  the  murderer  of  Gratian.  The  Court  of  Milan 
received  from  him  a  letter,  in  very  vigorous  terms,  in 
which  he  took  up  the  defence  of  the  persecuted  Catholics.^ 
Such  a  proceeding  could  not  fail  to  embitter  the  dispute. 
When  the  Easter  celebrations  came  round  again  (386), 
Ambrose  was  once  more  summoned  to  give  up  one  of  his 
churches,  and  was  then  formally  bidden  to  leave  Milan. 
He  refused  to  abandon  his  flock,  who,  besides,  were 
determined  not  to  allow  him  to  go,  and  remained  on  the 
alert,  spending  whole  days  and  nights  in  the  church.  He 
also  refused  to  take  part  in  a  conference  with  Auxentius.-^ 
There  was  nothing  for  it  but  to  leave  him  in  peace.  And 
it  seemed  also  as  if  Heaven  itself  came  to  his  aid.  On 
June  17,  386,  he  discovered  the  remains  of  two  Milanese 
martyrs,  Gervase  and  Protasius ;  no  sooner  were  they 
exhumed  than  they  caused  miracles  of  so  signal  a 
character  that  not  only  the  city  of  Milan,  but  the  whole 
of  Christendom  rang  with  the  tidings.^  Ambrose  acquired 
in  matters  of  this  kind  an  unexpected  success.  Before 
his  time,  only  three  martyrs  had  been  known  at  Milan — 
Victor,  Nabor,  and  Felix  ;  but,  after  Gervase  and  Protasius, 
he  discovered  at  Bologna,  in  393,  the  tombs  of  SS.  Vitalis 
and  Agricola,  and  again  at  Milan,  in  395,  those  of  SS. 
Nazarius  and  Celsus.'* 

In  the  meantime,  Maximus,  the  by  no  means  dis- 
interested protector  of  the  Catholics  of  Italy,  was  causing 
the  Court  of  Milan  more  and  more  serious  uneasiness. 
In  the  spring  of  387,^  Ambrose,  who  had  been  reconciled 
with  Valentinian  and  his  mother,  made  his  way  once  more 
to  Gaul,  with  the  ostensible  object  of  recovering  Gratian's 
remains,  but  evidently  with  the  view  to  arrange  matters,  if 

^  Coll.  Ave II.  39.  -  Ep.  21  ;  Senno  cotitra  Aux.  •'  Ep.  22. 

•*  Paulinus,  Vita  Ambrosii,  14,  29,  32.  Ambrose,  Exhort,  virgin,  i. 
— On  the  Saints  of  Milan,  see  the  works  of  P.  F.  Savio,  Ambrosiana, 
1897  (Nazarius^  and  Celsus)  ;  Nuovo  bull,  di  archeol.  crist.,  1898, 
p.  153  (Gervase  and  Protasius)  ;  Rivista  di  scienzc  storiche,  Pavia, 
1906  (Victor,  Nabor,  and  Felix). 

°  After  Easter,  which  fell  that  year  on  April  25  ;  it  was  at  this 
time  that  Augustine  received  baptism  at  Milan,  from  the  hands  of 
Ambrose. 


p.  554-5]       AMBROSE  AND  THEODOSIUS  439 

it  were  still  possible  to  do  so.  But  it  was  no  longer 
possible.  Some  months  later,  Maximus  entered  Italy ; 
Valentinian,  Justina,  and  the  whole  of  their  court  fled  by- 
sea,  and  found  refuge  at  Thessalonica. 

Theodosius  received  them  kindly,  and  set  himself  to 
put  in  order  again  the  affairs  of  his  youthful  colleague. 
This  he  succeeded  in  doing  in  the  following  summer. 
Maximus,  being  defeated  on  the  Save  and  the  Drave,  took 
refuge  at  Aquileia  ;  the  troops  of  the  Eastern  emperor  came 
up  with  him  there,  and  made  themselves  masters  of  his 
person.  He  was  executed  without  delay,  on  July  28,  388, 
and  Valentinian  II.  was  recognized  as  Emperor  of  the  whole 
of  the  West.  It  was  about  this  time  that  he  lost  his 
mother,  the  last  hope  of  the  Arian  party  :  Valentinian  now 
passed  under  the  moral  guardianship  of  Theodosius,  and 
under  the  religious  influence  of  Ambrose. 

Moreover,  Theodosius  stayed  nearly  three  years  in 
the  West.  During  this  time  he  held  frequent  communica- 
tion with  Ambrose.  The  esteem  which  they  professed  for 
each  other  did  not  prevent  them  from  finding  themselves 
sometimes  at  variance.  The  people  of  Callinica  ^  on  the 
Euphrates  had  sacked  a  synagogue,  at  the  instigation,  so 
it  appeared,  of  their  bishop.  In  the  same  country,  a 
procession  of  monks  having  encountered  a  party  of 
Valentinians,  a  fight  took  place,  at  the  end  of  which  the 
monks,  having  vanquished  the  heretics,  fell  upon  their 
temple  and  burnt  it  to  ashes.  Theodosius  ordered  that 
the  disorder  should  be  severely  repressed,  and  was 
especially  urgent  that  the  Bishop  of  Callinica  should 
rebuild  the  synagogue  at  his  own  expense.  Ambrose 
intervened,  and  succeeded  in  putting  a  stop  to  all  reprisals. 
In  these  cases  Theodosius  allowed  himself  to  yield,  but 
he  did  so  with  much  ill-temper,  and  complained  bitterly 
of  the  monks.^  Ambrose  declared  that  Jews  and  pagans 
had  been  guilty  of  many  acts  of  the  kind  in  Julian's  reign, 
and  no  one  had  interfered  with  them.  It  was,  it  must  be 
confessed,  a  poor  argument. 

'  Upon  this  affair,  see  letters  40  and  41  of  St  Ambrose. 
'  Ep.  41,  §  27. 


440  IN  THE  DAYS  OF  ST  AMBROSE      [ch.  xv. 

On  the  other  hand,  he  had  reason  on  his  side  when 
he  protested  against  the  massacre  of  the  people  of 
Thessalonica  who  had  been  guilty  of  sedition,  and 
required  the  emperor  to  do  penance.^  Theodosius  con- 
sented ;  he  had,  indeed,  been  the  first  to  regret  his 
outburst  of  passion,  and  to  deplore  the  frightful  con- 
sequences which  had  resulted  from  it.  Before  he  set  out 
on  his  return  to  the  East  in  391,  Ambrose  again  made 
strong  representations  to  him  in  order  to  obtain  a  settle- 
ment of  the  affair  at  Antioch,  in  which  he  had  never 
ceased  to  take  an  interest.  The  result  of  this  application 
was  that  a  great  council  assembled  at  Capua  in  391. 
Pope  Siricius  must  have  been  represented  there,  and  the 
Bishop  of  Milan  must  have  been  the  moving  spirit  in  it; 
but  with  regard  to  this  assemblage  we  have  only  a  small 
number  of  pieces  of  information  which  refer  quite  as  much 
to  certain  local  affairs,  of  which  we  shall  hear  later  on,  as 
to  the  principal  business. 

In  the  following  year,  the  young  Emperor,  Valentinian 
1 1.,  was  assassinated  in  Gaul.  His  place  was  taken  by  a  new 
usurper,  Eugenius,  under  whose  patronage  a  last  revival  of 
paganism  was  beginning  to  take  shape,  at  any  rate  at 
Rome,^  when  Theodosius  reappeared  on  the  scene  in  394. 
Ambrose,  broken-hearted  at  Valentinian's  death,  had  held 
himself  aloof  from  the  new  government.  He  did  not  long 
enjoy  the  pleasure  of  seeing  Theodosius  again,  for  that 
prince  died  on  January  17,  395.  His  remains  were 
transported  from  Milan  to  Constantinople. 

The  great  bishop  followed  him  soon  afterwards,  on 
April  4,  397,  which  was  Easter  eve.  Ten  years  before, 
at  the  same  Paschal  festival,  he  had  poured  the  water  of 

^  Ep.  51.  This  story  has  been  very  dramatically  told  by  Sozomen 
{H.  E.  vii.  25),  and  especially  by  Theodoret  {H.  E.  v.  17).  These 
authors  add,  following  Rufinus  {H.  E.  ii.  18),  that  Theodosius  after 
this  affair  ordered  by  a  special  law  that  the  execution  of  imperial 
sentences  should  always  be  deferred  for  a  month,  if  they  involved 
severe  penalties  {vindicari  severius).  This  is  the  law,  Cod.  Theod.  ix. 
40,  13,  which  is  wrongly  dated  in  the  Theodosian  Code,  as  is  shown 
by  the  observations  of  Mommsen  with  regard  to  another  law,  vii. 
18,  8.  -  See  below,  Chapter  XVII. 


i\  557]  DEATH  OF  ST  AMBROSE  441 

baptism  on  the  forehead  of  Augustine.  At  the  time  of 
his  death,  his  neophyte  was  already  Bishop  of  Hippo :  one 
light  succeeded  the  other.  And,  moreover,  Ambrose  did 
not  entirely  pass  away.  Besides  the  brightness  of  his 
memory,  he  left  many  books — pastoral  works,  sermons  on 
the  Bible,  transformed  for  publication  into  exegetical 
treatises ;  funeral  orations ;  hymns  and  liturgical  com- 
mentaries ;  theological  dissertations  against  Arianism, 
upon  the  Divinity  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  upon  the  Incarna- 
tion ;  moral  exhortations  on  the  duties  of  the  clergy  and 
on  the  profession  of  virginity  ;  and  letters  on  the  questions 
with  which  day  by  day  his  experience  was  called  upon  to 
deal.  All  these  were  written  quickly  in  the  midst  of  the 
cares  of  a  devoted  ministry.  Ambrose  did  not  mind 
availing  himself  of  assistance  from  previous  works.  He 
knew  Greek  very  well,  and  borrowed  largely  from  Origen, 
Didymus,  and  Basil.  In  his  treatise  on  duties  he  set 
himself  to  follow  Cicero.  He  had  no  literary  vanity.  In 
his  writings,  he  thought  only  of  their  practical  utility,  not 
at  all  of  the  lustre  they  might  bring  him.  Whether  they  were 
of  greater  or  less  originality,  he  cared  little,  provided  that 
they  fulfilled  the  purpose  for  which  he  published  them.  Who 
could  blame  such  a  man  for  having  saved  his  time  for  action  ? 
Although  somewhat  eclipsed  by  his  distinguished 
colleague.  Pope  Siricius  was  worthily  administering  the 
Apostolic  Church.  Like  the  majority  of  the  Popes 
of  these  early  days,  he  seems  to  have  been  of  moderate 
abilities,  abilities  which  were  above  all  practical.  At  Rome 
it  was  the  custom  to  choose  the  bishop  among  the  local 
clergy  ;  the  Pope  invariably  came  from  the  professional 
ministry.  An  election  like  that  of  Ambrose  was  impossible. 
This  system  involved  the  loss  of  the  chance  of  obtaining 
leaders  of  wide  range  of  ideas,  but  it  was  almost  certain 
that  they  would  be  always  wise  and  experienced.  The 
schism  of  Ursinus  was  suppressed.  When  assembled  to 
choose  a  successor  to  Damasus,  the  faithful  of  Rome  had 
protested    against   the    usurper.^       The    Roman    Church 

1  Letter  of  Valentinian  II.  to  the  Prefect  Pinianus  {Co//.  Avell.  4), 
Feb.  24,  385. 


442  IN  THE  DAYS  OF  ST  AMBROSE      [en.  xv. 

under  Siricius  lived  almost  in  peace,  recruiting  itself  more 
and  more  at  the  expense  of  paganism,  and  multiplying  or 
enlarging  its  sacred  buildings.     It  was  at  this  time  that 
the  Basilica  of  St  Paul  ^  was  rebuilt,  with  the  proportions 
in  which  we  see  it  at  the  present  day.     With  regard  to 
internal  conflicts,  we  hear  of  none  except  quarrels  between 
the   monks  and  their  opponents.      Siricius,  a  man    who 
loved  order,  supported  the  general  principles  of  Christian 
asceticism,  but  looked  with  no  favourable  eye  upon  people 
who   caused   disturbance.       In    the  very  first  days  of  his 
Pontificate,  Jerome  had  felt  that  the  air  of  Rome  was  becom- 
ing unhealthy  for  him.     But  he  was  not  the  only  one  who 
might  be  a  cause  of  uneasiness.     Jerome,  at  least,  was  an 
honest    man  ;    his  austerity  was  not  feigned,  his  life  was 
pure,  and  occupied  in  useful  work.     But  at  a  time  when 
no    monastery  existed    in    Rome,  when   the  monks  were 
left  to  themselves,  and  wandered  all  day  long  through  the 
streets,  we  can  imagine   the   eccentricities,  and  even  the 
disorders,  against  which  the  ecclesiastical  authorities  had 
to  keep  a  watchful  eye.     So-called  celibates  {cojitinentes) 
were  to  be  seen  vieing  with  the  most  exquisitely  scented 
clerics  in  the  assiduity  with  which  they  danced  attendance 
upon  great  ladies,  and  in  the  skill  with  which  they  angled 
for   legacies.^     It  became   necessary  to  repress  abuses  of 
this  kind  by  a  law,^  which  was  posted  up  in  all  the  churches 
in  Rome ;  and  this  severe  law,  which  forbade  anyone  to 
*make  a  will   in  favour  of  Christian  priests  and   monks — 
while  pagan  priests  preserved  the  right  of  inheritance — was 
declared  by  the  ecclesiastical  authorities  of  the  time  to  be 
just  and  necessary. 

These  abuses,  however,  had  not  the  effect  of  bringing 
the  religious  profession  into  disrepute.  Quite  the  con- 
trary ;    for   the   bishops,  manifestly  supported   by    public 

1  Letter  of  Valentinian  II.  to  the  Prefect  Sallust.  {Coll.  Avell.  3). 

2  It  is  with  this,  I  think,  that  there  is  connected  the  composition  of 
certain  liturgical  forms  included  later  in  the  collection  called  the 
"  Leonian  Sacramentary."  See  my  Origines  du  culte  chr^tien,  3rd 
edition,  p.  142. 

3  Cod.  Theod.  xvi.  2,  20  ;  cf.  Ambrose,  Ep.  xviii.  14  ;  Jerome,  Ep. 
Hi.  6. 


p.  559-60]    REACTION  FROM  ASCETICISM  443 

opinion,  had  never  set  themselves  more  eagerly  to  raise  it. 
They  continually  repeated  that,  all  things  being  equal  in 
other  respects,  virginity  is  superior  to  marriage,  repre- 
sents a  higher  condition,  and  is  more  meritorious  for  the 
life  to  come.  I  have  said  "  all  things  being  equal  in  other 
respects,"  for  no  one  dreamed  of  placing  a  bad  monk  or 
an  indiscreet  virgin  above  a  father  or  mother  of  a  family, 
who  was  faithful  to  his  or  her  duties.  But,  with  this  one 
reservation,  there  is  no  kind  of  praise  which  was  not 
bestowed  on  a  life  of  continence  and  abstinence ;  and, 
as  was  inevitable,  the  enthusiasm  displayed  for  it  some- 
times passed  all  bounds.  Hence  arose  in  some  persons  a 
tendency  to  reaction,  which,  when  translated  into  words, 
was  liable  in  its  turn  to  be  lacking  in  restraint. 

At  the  period  at  which  we  have  arrived  (about  390), 
this  tendency  was  represented  at  Rome  by  a  certain 
Jovinian,^  who,  after  having  lived  for  many  years  as  a 
monk  —  dishevelled  in  hair  and  in  clothing,  absorbed 
in  fasting  and  mortification  —  had  ended  by  convincing 
himself  of  the  uselessness  of  his  observances,  and  by 
returning  to  the  ordinary  conditions  of  life,  without  going 
so  far,  however,  as  to  marry.  If  he  had  stopped  there, 
there  would  have  been  nothing  to  say ;  but  he  soon 
passed  from  practice  to  theory  and  to  spreading  his  ideas 
abroad.  According  to  the  teaching  of  himself  and  his 
disciples  to  anyone  who  would  listen  to  them,  there  was 
no  moral  difference  between  the  life  of  celibates  and  that 
of  married  people ;  abstinence  and  other  ascetic  practices 
were  equally  useless ;  in  the  other  world  no  special 
recompense  would  reward  these  observances ;  all  this, 
they  declared,  clearly  followed  from  the  stories  of  the 
Bible  in  regard  to  the  patriarchs,  the  prophets,  and  the 
apostles  themselves ;  as  to  the  Virgin  Mary,  she  had 
ceased  to  be  a  virgin  in  bringing  her  Son  into  the  world  - ; 
after  Him,  she  had  had  other  children.  All  this  was 
consistent    enough,    once     the     premises    were    granted. 

'  Upon    Jovinian,    see    Haller,    lovinianus    in    the    Texte    und 
Untersuchungen,  vol.  xvii.  (1897). 

'"  Jovinian  did  not  deny  the  Virginal  Conception  of  Christ. 


444  IN  THE  DAYS  OF  ST  AMBROSE      [ch.  xv. 

Jovinian  had  another  doctrine,  according  to  which  true 
Christians  could  not  possibly  sin  ;  those  who  do  so  have 
not  been  truly  baptized ;  they  have  only  received  the 
outward  part  of  the  Sacrament,  without  experiencing  its 
inward  efficacy.^ 

These  ideas  were  propagated  by  disputations  and 
addresses ;  at  last  they  were  set  forth  in  a  book,  and  this 
was  a  misfortune  for  Jovinian,  because  henceforth  his 
opponents  had  a  basis  for  operations  against  him. 
Among  the  most  active  opponents  were  the  friends  of 
Jerome,  especially  the  Senator  Pammachius,  a  very  pious 
man,  who  had  renounced  the  world  and  devoted  himself 
to  works  of  charity.  They  denounced  Jovinian  to  Pope 
Siricius ;  he  in  his  turn  gathered  his  clergy  together ;  and 
when  it  had  been  proved  that  the  new  doctrines  were 
incompatible  with  the  "  Christian  Law,"  Jovinian  and 
eight  of  his  followers  were  excommunicated  as  propagators 
of  heresy.  News  of  this  sentence  was  immediately 
given  to  Milan  by  three  Roman  priests,  whom  Siricius 
entrusted  with  the  duty  of  carrying  thither  a  sort  of 
circular  letter.-  Jovinian  was  already  there,  hoping  no 
doubt  to  arrange  matters  in  his  own  favour  with  the 
assistance  of  the  Court.  He  was  mistaken.  Ambrose 
needed  little  rousing  against  the  enemies  of  virginity. 
He  assembled  some  bishops  around  him,  and  pronounced 
against  Jovinian  an  additional  condemnation.^  The 
emperor,  warned  by  the  legates,  gave  no  reception  to  the 
heretics  ;  they  were  even  driven  from  Milan.*     A  little  later, 

1  Thanks  to  this  doctrine,  Jovinian  (or  rather,  his  memory), 
played  a  part  later  on  in  the  controversies  between  Pelagians  and 
anti-Pelagians,  who  each  hurled  him  at  the  others'  heads. 

-  Jafife,  260. 

^  Letter  42,  addressed  to  Pope  Siricius.  The  Council  of  Milan 
goes  a  little  too  far  in  comparing  the  opinions  of  Jovinian  to 
Manicheism.  So  far  as  we  are  informed,  there  is  nothing  in  common 
between  the  two  systems. 

•*  In  a  law  of  the  Theodosian  Code  (xvi.  5,  53),  Jovinian  is 
represented  as  holding  meetings  in  the  outskirts  of  Rome.  Orders 
are  given  for  the  deportation  of  himself  and  his  adherents  to  different 
islands.  The  law  is  dated  in  412  ;  but  the  name  of  the  prefect  to 
whom  it  is  addressed  would  point  rather  to  the  year  398.     Besides, 


p.  562]  JOVINIAN  AND  JEROME  445 

in  396,  two  monks  of  Vercellae,  having  broken  their  vows, 
began  to  preach  against  asceticism.  Ambrose  wrote  to 
the  Church  of  Vercellae  in  the  severest  terms,  speaking  of 
the  innovators  as  Epicureans.^  Augustine  also  had 
occasion  to  write  against  the  doctrines  of  Jovinian.^ 

But  these  refutations  were  of  somewhat  later  date. 
At  the  time,  Pammachius,  whom  the  sentences  of  Rome 
and  Milan  had  not  sufficed  to  appease,  took  it  into  his 
head  to  secure  the  intervention  of  Jerome.  Of  the  latter, 
for  several  years  nothing  had  been  heard.  He  was 
immersed  at  Bethlehem  in  his  Biblical  studies,  and  seemed 
to  have  turned  his  back  for  ever  upon  the  Babylon  of 
Italy.  If  he  ever  wrote  there  it  was  to  implore  his  friends 
to  rejoin  in  Palestine  the  colony  he  had  founded  in  it 
with  Paula  and  Eustochium,  and  to  extol  the  sanctity  of 
the  Holy  Places.  However,  there  still  remained  to  him 
memories.  Neither  St  Paul,  nor  the  prophets,  upon  whom 
he  was  diligently  commenting,  nor  Origen,  whom  he  was 
translating  so  eagerly,  caused  him  to  forget  Cicero ;  and 
loudly  as  he  celebrated  the  charms  of  the  Holy  Land  or 
the  virtues  of  the  hermits  of  Palestine,^  Rome  ever  lived 
in  the  background  of  his  memories.  Pammachius  sent 
him  Jovinian's  book. 

What  a  piece  of  good  fortune !  Virginity,  and 
asceticism  as  a  whole  to  be  defended,  and  that  before 
the  Roman  public,  and  against  an  adversary  who  did  not 
know  how  to  write !  *  Jerome  let  himself  go.  In  a  few 
weeks  he  had  composed  his  two  books  against  Jovinian, 
and  Rome  soon  rang  with  them.  Unfortunately,  he  had 
gone  too  far,  and  it  was  not  against  Jovinian,  already 
crushed  by  official  sentences,  that  public  opinion  was 
excited,  but  against  the  Imprudent  controversialist,  who, 

the  name  of  the  heretic  in  the  MS.  tradition  \s  /ovuifius,  not  Jov/m'anus. 
It  is,  in  fact,  very  doubtful  if  our  Jovinian  is  in  question  here. 

>  Ep.  83,  about  396. 

-  This  is  the  subject  of  his  De  bono  coniui^ali. 

^  His  Lives  of  Malchus  and  of  Hilarion  belong  to  this  period. 

*  He  quotes  from  Jovinian,  while  refuting  him  ;  his  extracts 
really  give  the  impression  of  an  author  who  cared  little  about  his 
style. 


446  IN  THE  DAYS  OF  ST  AMBROSE      [cii.  xv. 

under  pretext  of  defending  asceticism,  placed  married 
people  in  a  most  awkward  position.  Pammachius  was 
sorry  for  having  invoked  such  a  helper.  He  did  all  he 
could  to  withdraw  the  unfortunate  philippic  from  circula- 
tion. The  priest  Domnio,  another  of  Jerome's  friends, 
for  his  part  removed  from  it  the  most  objectionable 
passages,  and  both  of  them  wrote  to  the  hermit.  Jerome 
at  once  assumed  the  defensive.  He  began  by  modestly 
explaining  to  his  friends  that  his  books  were  not  the  kind 
which  could  be  suppressed  or  expurgated  at  pleasure ; 
that  the  public  gave  them  so  great  a  reception  that  they 
were  no  sooner  written  than  they  were  in  everybody's 
hands.  As  to  the  objections  made  against  him,  he  was 
naturally  of  opinion  there  was  no  common  sense  in  them. 

In    Jerome,   the     "  old     man "   died    hard.       At     the 

moment    when    he    was    embarking    on    the    campaign 

against   Jovinian,   he    had    just    published    his   De   viris 

illustribus,  in   which  his  literary  judgments  manifest   so 

strongly   his   friendships   and    his   animosities.     Thus   he 

contents    himself    with    mentioning    Ambrose    by   name, 

without  saying  one  word  about  his  writings,  "  for  fear  he 

might  be  accused  of  flattery  or  suspicion  cast  upon  his 

veracity."     There  was  no  fear  of  flattery,  for,  apart  from 

a  few  common-place  mentions,  he  never  spoke  of  Ambrose 

except   to  decry  him.     Amply  provided  himself  by   the 

pens   of   Origen    and    of   Eusebius,   he    finds    fault   with 

Ambrose's    borrowings    from    Greek    authors.       He   had 

even  taken  the  trouble  to  translate  the  work  of  Didymus 

upon   the    Holy    Spirit,   in    order   that   the  Latin   public 

might   judge   what,   on    a    similar    subject,   a    miserable 

crow  iinformis   cornicula,  for  which  read  "St  Ambrose") 

owed  to  the  Alexandrian  Doctor.     It  was  with  an  equally 

charitable  intention  that  he  had  translated  into  Latin  the 

homilies  of  Origen  upon  St  Luke.     In  his  Chronicle   he 

had  abused  Cyril  of  Jerusalem  and  St  Basil,  treating  the 

first  as  an  Arian,  and   asserting   that   the  merits  of  the 

Bishop   of  Caesarea  were   annihilated   by   his   pride.     Of 

John  Chrysostom,  whose  eloquence  at  the  moment  when 

Jerome  was  writing  his  De  viris  held  Antioch  spellbound 


p.  564-5]      JEROME  S  LITERARY  JEALOUSY        447 

and  illuminated  the  whole  of  the  East,  he  knew  only  a 
little  treatise  on  the  Priesthood.  Later  on,  he  was  to 
aggravate  in  a  signal  degree  the  injustice  of  which  he 
was  guilty  towards  that  illustrious  man.  But  Basil  had 
been  the  friend  of  Meletius,  and  Chrysostom  was  one  of 
Flavian's  priests  :  the  relations  of  Jerome  with  the  Little 
Church  of  Antioch  would  explain,  in  some  measure,  the 
bad  temper  which  he  displays  when  they  are  concerned. 
It  is  more  difficult  to  understand  why  he  showed  so  little 
goodwill  to  the  Bishop  of  Milan,  who  was  himself  a 
supporter  of  PauHnus,  himself  a  champion  of  asceticism, 
and  a  patron  of  virginity.  Could  there  have  been  some 
unpleasantness  between  the  pious  salons  of  Marcella  and 
of  Marcellina?  Or  could  Ambrose,  who  went  to  Rome 
in  382,  at  a  time  when  Jerome  was  also  there,  have 
inadvertently  inflicted  a  scratch  upon  that  most  sensitive 
of  skins  ?     Of  all  this  we  know  nothing. 

Very  discreet  in  his  mention  of  Ambrose's  literary 
efforts,  and  in  general  as  to  those  of  authors  who  did  not 
please  him,  Jerome  is  fortunately  less  reserved  as  to  his 
own.  His  De  viris  concludes  with  a  long  chapter,  in 
which  he  draws  up  a  complete  catalogue  of  all  that  he  had 
published  down  to  the  year  392.  It  was  no  small  amount. 
If  Jerome  was  bad-tempered,  at  any  rate  he  did  not  waste 
his  time. 


CHAPTER   XVI 

CHRISTIANITY   IN    THE   EAST   UNDER   THEODOSIUS 

Christian  settlements  north  of  the  Danube.  Ulfilas  and  the  conver- 
sion of  the  Goths.  The  sects.  The  assembly  in  383.  Divisions 
among  the  Arians  and  Eunomians.  The  Novatians.  Fanatical 
sects :  the  Massalians.  Amphilochius,  Bishop  of  Iconium. 
Gregory  of  Nyssa.  Gregory  of  Nazianzus.  Epiphanius  and 
the  heretics.  Apollinaris :  his  teaching  and  his  propaganda. 
Diodore  of  Tarsus.  Flavian  and  Chrysostom.  The  schism 
at  Antioch :  Council  of  Cassarea.  Eusebius  of  Samosata. 
Edessa  and  its  legends :  St  Ephrem.  Palestine.  Cyril  of 
Jerusalem.  Pilgrimages :  visit  of  Gregory  of  Nyssa.  Rufinus 
and  Jerome,  Arabia  :  the  cult  of  Mary.  Titus  of  Bostra  and 
his  successors.     The  Council  of  394. 

I.  Arianism  among  the   Goths. 

Christian  propaganda  in  the  West  had  scarcely  extended 
beyond  the  frontiers ;  there  still  remained  too  much 
to  be  done  in  the  interior  without  engaging  in  distant 
missions.  Besides,  the  Scots  and  Picts  to  the  north  of 
Roman  Britain,  the  Saxons,  Franks,  and  Alamanni,  in 
independent  Germany,  were  in  a  state  of  continual  hos- 
tility to  the  empire.  There  was  quite  enough  difficulty 
already  in  preventing  them  from  ravaging  it,  without 
thinking  of  going  to  them  in  order  to  preach  the  Gospel. 
At  certain  points,  in  Upper  Germany  {Agri  Deciimates) 
and  beside  the  Carpathians  (Moesia  and  Dacia),  Roman 
settlements  had  already  passed  the  line  of  the  Rhine  and 
of  the  Danube ;  but  they  had  all  been  swamped  by  the 
invasions  in  the  middle  of  the  3rd  century;  and  then, 
finally,  the  empire  had  abandoned  positions  which  stood 
out  of  all  relation  to  the  centre  of  government.     It    is 

448 


p.  567]  DANUBIAN  SETTLEMENTS  449 

possible  that  Christianity  had  already  been  planted  there 
in  a  few  places ;  but  of  this  we  have  neither  indication  nor 
testimony. 

Such  was  the  state  of  things  down  to  the  end  of  the 
4th  century.  Except  near  the  mouths  of  the  Danube, 
we  hear  nothing  of  the  establishment  of  churches  beyond 
the  frontiers,  but  much  on  the  other  hand  of  churches 
destroyed  on  Roman  territory  by  the  invasions  of 
barbarians. 

Beyond  the  Lower  Danube,  the  legatus  of  Moesia 
Inferior  had  long  watched  over  the  passage  between  the 
south-east  angle  of  the  Transylvanian  plateau  and  the 
Black  Sea.  His  protection  extended  along  the  shore  of 
the  latter  to  various  Greek  settlements,  such  as  the  towns 
of  Tyra  and  Olbia,  at  the  mouth  of  the  Tyras  (Dniester) 
and  of  the  Borysthenes  (Dnieper),  the  town  of  Cherson 
(Sebastopol),  and  the  little  kingdom  of  Bosphorus  (Kertch) 
at  the  entrance  to  the  Sea  of  Azov.  Tyra  and  Olbia, 
ancient  colonies  of  Miletus,  were,  under  the  empire,  in 
a  state  of  great  decay.  Hellenism  there  found  itself 
more  and  more  ground  down  by  barbarism.  We  hear 
nothing  more  of  them  after  the  reign  of  Alexander 
Severus,  which  leads  us  to  conclude  that  they  were 
destroyed  by  the  Goths.  It  was  not  so  with  Cherson 
and  Bosphorus :  these  two  cities,  so  different  in  their 
origin  and  institutions — the  one  democratic,  the  other 
monarchical — had  no  doubt  to  suffer  a  good  deal  from 
the  new  barbarians,  both  in  their  commerce  and  in  the 
political  influence  which  they  exercised  with  the  Scythians 
and  Sarmatians ;  but  they  held  their  ground  and  con- 
tinued to  exist  until  the  Middle  Ages.  Christianity  was 
established  there  at  an  early  period :  a  Bishop  of 
Bosphorus  was  present  at  the  Council  of  Niceea  in  325,^ 
a  Bishop  of  Cherson  at  that  of  Constantinople  in  381. 

1  KdSyuos  Bo(j-7r6poi;.  Another  bishop  of  this  see  perished  in  358  at 
Nicomedia,  under  the  ruins  of  the  church  which  was  overthrown  by 
an  earthquake.  Sozomen  {H.  E.  iv.  16)  mentions  him  without  giving 
his  name.  Upon  the  Christian  antiquities  of  Kertch,  see  the  article 
of  J.  Kulakowsky,  in  the  Roinische  QuartalscJirift,  vol.  viii.  (1894), 
p.  309  et  seq. 

II  2  F 


450  THE  EAST  UNDER  THEODOSIUS     [ch.  xvi. 

The  Goths  themselves  were  reached  by  the  spreading 
of  the  Gospel  as  soon  as  they  began  to  live  in  the 
neighbourhood  of  the  Black  Sea.  We  might  almost  say 
that  the  beginning  of  their  Christianity  dated  from  the 
terrible  invasions  by  which  they  harassed  the  empire 
towards  the  middle  of  the  3rd  century.  From  their 
expeditions  into  Asia  Minor  they  brought  back  with 
them,  amongst  other  captives,  several  Christians  who 
taught  them  with  success  the  doctrine  of  Christ.^  Clergy 
were  to  be  found  amongst  the  captives ;  and  these 
organized  the  first  groups  of  converts.  The  churches 
of  Bosphorus  and  Cherson,  as  well  as  those  on  the  Lower 
Danube,  could  not  fail  to  serve  as  bases  for  propaganda. 
At  the  Council  of  Nicaea  there  was  a  bishop  of  "  Gothia," 
called  Theophilus.  Certain  indications  lead  us  to  connect 
him  with  a  group  of  Germanic  peoples  who  finally 
established  themselves  in  the  Crimea,  abandoning  their 
wandering  life,  while  the  main  body  of  the  Goths  and 
their  dependents  flowed  towards  the  West.^ 

'  Philostorgius  (ii.  5)  and  Sozomen  (ii.  6)  agree  as  to  this.  One 
of  these  captives  perhaps  was  the  Eutyches  of  Cappadocia  who  is 
mentioned  in  a  letter  of  St  Basil  {Ep.  165). 

^  In  the  time  of  St  John  Chrysostom,  these  Goths  received  their 
bishops  from  Constantinople.  He  himself  consecrated  for  them  one 
of  these  who  was  called  Unila,  and  of  whom  he  speaks  very  favour- 
ably {Ep.  14).  Unila  died  during  his  exile,  which  caused  Chrysostom 
much  anxiety,  because  he  did  not  wish  the  successor  to  be  consecrated 
by  the  intruder  Arsacius  {Epp.  206,  207).  This  mission  was  connected 
with  a  Gothic  monastery  at  Constantinople — that  of  Promotus.  In 
547,  certain  Goths  of  the  Crimea,  whom  Procopius  calls  Tetraxites, 
{Bell.  Goth.  iv.  5)  asked  a  bishop  from  Justinian.  They  lived  on  the 
shores  of  the  Sea  of  Azov.  Other  Goths  are  mentioned  by  the  same 
writer  {De  aedif.  iii.  7)  as  settled  peoples,  agriculturists,  and  allies 
of  the  empire,  to  which  they  were  able  to  furnish  3000  fighting-men. 
They  lived  in  the  maritime  region,  in  the  neighbourhood  of  a  place 
called  Dory.  It  was  on  this  side,  ;>.,  to  the  east  of  Cherson,  that 
there  was  situated  the  bishopric  of  Gothia  which  is  noticed  in 
Byzantine  annals  from  the  loth  century  onwards  (N^a  TaKTLKo)  ;  more 
ancient  records  do  not  mention  it.  It  is  possible  that  all  these 
pieces  of  information  refer  to  one  and  the  same  bishopric,  which, 
since  the  time  of  Theophilus,  may  have  represented  the  religious 
organization  of  the  Goths  and  other  barbarians  who  had  settled  in  the 


p.  569-70]  ULFILAS  451 

Several  Mesopotamian  ascetics  had  been  exiled  to 
Scythia  during  the  last  years  of  Constantine's  reign, 
perhaps  a  little  later.  Their  leader  was  a  certain  Audius. 
The  official  clergy  charged  them  (apart  from  their  extra- 
ordinary mode  of  life)  with  an  insolent  insubordination 
towards  the  hierarchy,  with  various  erroneous  doctrines, 
anthropomorphism  amongst  others,  and,  finally,  with  their 
opposition  to  the  Paschal  decree  of  the  Council  of  Nicaea.^ 
They  were  very  zealous  folk ;  the  idea  of  evangelizing 
the  Goths  attracted  them.  They  threw  themselves  into 
it  with  enthusiasm,  and  obtained  considerable  success  ;  they 
even  went  so  far  as  to  organize  monasteries.  After  the 
death  of  Audius,  another  Mesopotamian,  Uranius,  under- 
took the  government  of  the  sect.  Both  of  them  were 
bishops,  although  by  irregular  ordination.  They  also  in 
their  turn  ordained  some  of  their  own  converts,  notably 
a  certain  Silvanus. 

But  the  most  considerable  effort  was  that  made  by 
Bishop  Ulfilas.  Notwithstanding  his  Germanic  name,  he 
was  descended  from  a  family  of  Cappadocian  captives, 
carried  away  from  their  homes  in  the  reign  of  Valerian.- 
At  about  the  age  of  thirty,  Ulfilas  was  fulfilling  the  duties 
of  a  reader,  no  doubt  in  some  mission-church,  when  he 
was  chosen  by  the  king  of  the  Goths  to  form  one  of  an 
embassy  to  the  Court  of  Constantius.  Eusebius  of 
Nicomedia  saw  him,  and  thinking  that  his  abilities  gave 
hope  for  the  future,  consecrated  him  bishop  for  his  nation. 
When  Ulfilas  returned  home,  he  set  himself  to  fulfil  his 
duties  with  the  most  intelligent  ardour.     It  was  he  who 

Crimea.  But  this  is  not  certain  ;  and  in  any  case  we  should  have 
to  allow  change  of  residence  and  perhaps  interruptions  in  the 
succession. 

'  This  decree  was  again  confirmed  by  the  Council  of  Antioch 
(canon  i).  On  the  Audians  our  best  source  of  information  is 
Epiphanius  {Haer.  Ixx.).  Theodoret  {H.  E.  iv.  9)  adds  some  new 
particulars  which  apparently  correspond  to  a  further  development. 
Upon  the  attitude  of  the  Audians  on  the  Paschal  question,  see  my 
memoir,  "  La  question  de  la  Paque  au  concile  de  Nicee,"  in  the 
Revue  des  questions  hist.,  vol.  xxviii.  (1880),  p.  29. 

^  In  the  little  town  of  Sadagolthina,  on  the  skirts  of  Parnassus. 


452  THE  EAST  UNDER  THEODOSIUS     [ch.  xvi. 

initiated  the  Gothic  nation  into  Roman  and  Christian 
civilization.  He  formed  an  alphabet,  which  replaced  with 
considerable  advantage  the  old  Runic  script ;  and  he 
translated  into  Gothic  the  greater  part  of  the  Holy 
Scriptures.^  A  large  number  of  his  fellow-countrymen 
embraced  Christianity.  King  Hermanaric  at  length  grew 
uneasy  at  seeing  so  many  of  his  companions-in-arms  pass 
over  to  the  religion  of  the  Romans.  He  grew  angry, 
and  ordered  all  the  missionaries,  those  of  Audius  as  well 
as  those  of  Ulfilas,  to  recross  the  Danube.  The  Audians 
returned  to  the  East ;  Ulfilas  and  his  disciples,  who  had 
followed  him  in  great  numbers,  were  permitted  to  settle  in 
the  province  of  Mcesia  Inferior,  near  the  town  of  Nicopolis. 
This  exodus  took  place  in  349  or  thereabouts.  Ulfilas  lived 
thirty-three  years  longer.  He  was  an  Arian.  In  360,  he 
was  present  at  the  Council  of  Constantinople,  and  gave  his 
vote  with  those  who  approved  of  the  Creed  of  Ariminum. 
In  383,  being  summoned  by  the  Emperor  Theodosius,  with 
the  leaders  of  other  dissenting  groups,  he  again  travelled 
to  the  capital,  and  died  on  his  arrival  there.  The  con- 
fession of  faith  which  he  had  prepared,  and  which  was  his 
spiritual  testament,  we  still  possess.  It  is  Arianism  pure 
and  simple.2 

The   step   taken   by   the   king   of  the  Goths   against 
Bishop    Ulfilas    did    not   completely   put   an    end    to  the 

^  Philostorgius,  ii.  5.  He  seems  only  to  have  omitted  the  Books 
of  Kings,  thinking  it  would  be  unwise  to  put  so  many  descriptions  of 
battles  before  the  eyes  of  people  who  were  only  too  much  inclined  to 
warfare.  This  is  what  Philostorgius  says.  If  this  was  really  the  case, 
Ulfilas  must  have  had  to  make  other  "  cuts  "  in  the  Old  Testament. 

2  To  the  information  gained  from  historians  of  the  5th  century 
(Philostorgius,  ii.  5  ;  Socrates,  H.  E.  ii.  41,  iv.  ■})Ty ;  Sozomen,  H.  E.  iv. 
24,  vi.  37),  we  can  now  add  contemporary  documents,  preserved  in  the 
treatise  of  the  Arian  Bishop  Maximin  against  St  Ambrose.  This 
treatise,  transcribed  in  the  margins  of  the  Paris  MS.  8907,  was  first 
studied  by  Waitz,  Ueber  das  Leben  und  die  Lehre  des  Ulfilas,  Hanover, 
1840  ;  then  by  Bessell,  Ueber  das  Leben  des  Ulfilas,  etc.,  Gottingen, 
i860.  It  has  been  published  entirely — so  far  as  the  state  of  the  MS. 
permits — by  Fr.  Kauffmann,  Aus  der  Schiile  des  Wulfila,  in  vol.  i.  of 
Texte  und  Untersuchungen  zur  altgermanischen  Religionsgeschichte, 
Strassburg,  1899.     It  contains  (pp.  73-76)  a  long  extract  from  a  letter 


p.  572]       THE  GOTHS  AND  THE  EMPIRE  453 

propaganda  beyond  the  Danube.  The  Bishop  of 
Thessalonica,  AchoHus,  took  an  effective  interest  in  it. 
But  the  times  became  more  and  more  difficult.  The 
Goths  near  the  Danube  had  supported  the  claims  of 
Procopius  against  Valens ;  hence,  when  the  latter  had  got  rid 
of  his  rival,  ensued  a  war  which  lasted  for  three  years  (367- 
369).  The  preachers  of  the  Roman  religion  bore  the 
brunt  of  the  recoil  of  these  hostilities.  Several  stories  of 
martyrs  belong  to  this  period.  The  best  authenticated  is 
that  of  a  St  Sabas,  who  was  drowned  in  the  river  Buseu  ^ 
in  372.  Others  were  burnt,  sometimes  en  masse,  in  the 
tents  which  served  them  for  churches.- 

The  way  being  thus  prepared,  a  general  conversion  to 
Christianity  took  place  as  the  consequence  of  a  grave 
political  event.  The  Huns,  crossing  the  line  of  the  Don, 
forced  the  Goths  back,  upon  the  Dniester  first,  afterwards 
upon  the  Sereth,  threatening  to  drive  them  still  farther. 
Being  brought  to  a  stand  at  the  Danube,  the  vanquished 
Goths  determined  to  ask  for  a  refuge  in  the  Roman 
empire.  They  were  welcomed  there  as  guests  and 
auxiliaries  (376);  but  very  soon  they  conducted  them- 
selves in  it  like  masters ;  and  after  the  disaster  at 
Adrianople,  in  378,  their  history  follows  them,  no  longer 
to  the  vicinity,  but  into  the  very  heart  of  the  empire.  At 
the  time  when  they  penetrated  there,  the  confession  of 
Ariminum  represented  official  Christianity  ;  the  Church  of 

in  which  Auxentius,  Bishop  of  Dorostorum  and  a  disciple  of  Ulfilas, 
relates  the  life  of  his  master.  It  is  at  the  end  of  this  little  document 
that  we  find  the  "Credo"  of  Ulfilas:  "Ego  Ulfila  episkopus  et 
confessor  semper  sic  credidi  et  in  hac  fide  sola  et  vera  transitum  facio 
ad  dominum  meum." 

1  Moi/o-eor,  a  tributary  on  the  right  of  the  Sereth.  This  event  took 
place  on  April  12,  which  is  the  day  of  his  Feast. 

^  Socrates,  H.  E.  iv.  34  ;  Sozomen,  H.  E.  vii.  37  ;  Basil,  Ep.  164, 
165  ;  Ambrose,  Ep.  15,  16  ;  in  Luc.  ii.  37  ;  Aug.  De  civ.  Dei  ^vm.  52  ; 
see  also  the  hagiographical  traditions  relating  to  SS.  Bathusius  and 
Vereas  (March  26),  St  Nicetas  (September  15),  and  St  Sabas  (April 
12).  The  remains  of  these  martyrs  were  translated  respectively  to 
Cyzicus,  to  Mopsuestia,  and  to  Csesarea  in  Cappadocia.  The  remains 
of  St  Sabas  were  collected  and  sent  to  St  Basil  by  the  Dux  of  Scythia, 
Junius  Soranus,  his  fellow-countryman. 


454  THE  EAST  UNDER  THEODOSIUS     [oh.  xvi. 

Constantinople  was  governed  by  an  Arian  bishop.  But 
this  only  lasted  for  a  short  time  ;  the  government  of 
Gratian  and  of  Theodosius  took  up  a  decided  position  on 
the  side  of  the  faith  of  Nicaea.  From  that  quarter  the 
barbarians  would  not  undergo  any  serious  pressure.  But 
the  members  of  the  episcopate  were  divided  amongst 
themselves.  If  the  Bishops  of  Tomi^  and  Marcianopolis  ^ 
were  pillars  of  orthodoxy,  Auxentius  of  Dorostorum  ^  was 
a  fervent  disciple  of  Ulfilas  ;  Palladius  of  Ratiaria"*  had 
long  records  of  service  in  the  Arian  camp;  and  they  were 
not  the  only  ones.  But  it  is  Ulfilas  more  than  any  one 
else  who  has  to  be  reckoned  with  in  this  matter.  What 
instructor  could  commend  himself  more  highly  to  the 
Gothic  nation  and  to  its  leaders  ?  With  him,  Christian 
worship  was  clothed  in  national  forms  ;  it  was  conducted 
in  Gothic ;  Gothic  was  the  language  for  preaching  and  for 
prayer.  It  was  true  that,  as  regarded  the  Creed,  he  was 
not  in  agreement  with  the  actual  possessors  of  imperial 
authority ;  but  he  had  been  so  under  the  government  of 
Constantius  and  Valens.  Who  could  say  that  a  new 
change  was  impossible?  And  after  all,  was  it  such  an 
urgent  matter  to  obliterate  all  religious  distinction  between 
Goths  and  Romans  ? 

Whether  or  no  people  reasoned  in  this  way  on  the 
situation,  the  fact  remains  that  it  settled  itself  in  such 
a  way  that  Arianism  in  proportion  as  it  lost  ground  among 
the  subjects  of  the  empire  gained  it  amongst  its  "allies." 

It  was  not  only  upon  the  Lower  Danube  that  this 
was  the  case.  Along  the  whole  length  of  that  river 
the  barbarians  who  lived  on  the  frontier  passed  over,  one 
after  another,  to  Christianity,  and  to  Christianity  in  an 
Arian  ^   form.     The    circumstances    were    almost    exactly 

^  The  Bishop  of  Tomi  was  the  only  bishop  in  his  province  of 
Scythia.  -  Cod.  Theod.  xvi.  i,  3. 

3  Upon  Auxentius,  see  above,  p.  437.  ^  Supra.,  pp.  375  et  seq. 

^  We  must  notice,  however,  the  story  of  Fritigil,  Queen  of  the 
Marcomanni,  to  whom  St  Ambrose  had  given  reHgious  instruction 
by  letter  (Paulinus,  Vita  Ambr.  36).  She  persuaded  the  king,  her 
husband,  to  give  himself  to  the  Romans,  and  went  herself  to  Milan, 
where  St  Ambrose  had  just  died. 


p.  574-5]       THE  REVIVAL  OF  ARIANISM  455 

the  same.  In  Pannonia,  as  in  Moesia,  the  churches  had 
long  been  governed  by  Arian  prelates.  If  on  this  side 
we  do  not  find  any  bishop  who  was  equal  to  Ulfilas,  we 
must  certainly  acknowledge  that  the  example  of  the 
Goths  contributed  greatly  to  determine  the  views  of  the 
other  Germanic  nations.  Arianism  enters  at  this  moment 
upon  a  new  career.  Goths  of  the  West  and  of  the 
East,  Burgundians,  Swabians,  Vandals,  and  Lombards 
begin  to  make  it  their  national  religion  ;  in  the  provinces 
wrested  from  the  empire  they  are  to  restore  to  honour 
the  confession  of  Ariminum ;  down  to  the  6th  and  7th 
centuries  we  shall  see  it  holding  the  faith  of  Nicaea  in 
check.  But  these  are  later  and  Western  developments. 
For  the  moment  all  that  we  need  notice  particularly  is 
that  even  in  the  interior  of  the  empire,  whether  in  the  East 
or  in  the  West,  and  among  Roman  populations,  Arianism 
was  to  profit  by  the  prestige  of  its  new  adherents.  It 
was  useless  to  think  of  eradicating  it  from  the  army ; 
the  Goths  henceforth  added  themselves  to  this  as  auxiliary 
troops,  and  that  under  the  command  of  their  national 
chiefs ;  and  besides,  even  in  the  ranks  of  the  regular 
army  and  its  senior  staff,  they  were  largely  represented. 
The  Goths  had  to  be  reckoned  with  in  this  respect  as 
in  so  many  others. 

2.   TJieodosiiis  and  the  Sects. 

The  barbarian  adherents  of  Arianism  were  not  the 
only  ones  to  demand  the  attention  of  the  Emperor 
Theodosius.  It  had  been  comparatively  easy  to  restore 
the  churches  to  the  orthodox  prelates,  and  to  rain  the 
condemnations  of  councils  upon  the  followers  of  Demophilus 
and  of  Eunomius.  Agreement  in  spirit  between  the  two 
parties  was  not  secured  so  quickly.  Banished  from  the 
official  buildings,  the  heretical  teaching  was  still  carried 
on  in  conventicles;  the  spirit  of  Aetius  still  breathed 
there ;  it  was  useless  to  exile  Eunomius  ;  he  found  means 
everywhere  to  carry  on  the  controversy.  It  was  at 
Constantinople    more   than   anywhere  else  that    it  raged 


456  THE  EAST  UNDER  THEODOSIUS     [ch.  xvi. 

People  were  beset  with  it  in  the  streets  and  in  the  pubHc 
squares.  There  was  not  a  street-corner  at  which  men 
were  not  to  be  found  furiously  discussing  the  most 
abstruse  matters.  The  money-changer  whom  you  asked 
for  some  money  spoke  to  you  of  the  Begotten  and  of  the 
Unbegotten ;  the  baker,  instead  of  telling  you  the  price 
of  bread,  declared  that  the  Father  is  greater  than  the 
Son,  and  that  the  Son  is  subject  unto  Him.  If  you 
asked  for  a  bath,  •'  the  Son  comes  certainly  from  nothing," 
would  be  the  reply  of  the  bath-keeper — an  Anomoean. 

Theodosius  had  a  great  desire  to  put  an  end  to  these 
divisions,  instead  of  having  to  punish  the  dissentients, 
who,  after  all,  were  mostly  conscientious  and  peaceful 
folk.  He  persuaded  himself  that  by  his  personal 
intervention  he  would  obtain  some  results.'^  After  the 
two  councils  of  381  and  382  he  convoked  a  third  in  383, 
which  was  to  take  the  form  of  a  conference  between  the 
leaders  of  the  different  confessions ;  the  emperor  was 
to  take  part  in  it,  and  to  endeavour  to  arrange  an  under- 
standing. 

The  meeting  actually  took  place  ^ ;  it  was  held  in 
the  month  of  June.  Ulfilas,  notwithstanding  his  great 
age,  travelled  to  Constantinople,  where  he  died  on  his 
arrival.  We  still  possess  the  confession  of  faith  which 
he  intended  to  present  to  the  emperor.  Eunomius  at 
this  time  was  living  at  Chalcedon ;  he  came  to  present 
his  own  confession  of  faith,  which  has  also  been  preserved.* 
The  others,  Demophilus,  on  behalf  of  the  Arians,  and 
Eleusius,  on  behalf  of  the  Macedonians,  did  the  same. 
To  judge  from  the  documents  of  Eunomius  and  of  Ulfilas, 
each   of  them  confined  himself  to  stating  his  own  belief, 

^  Gregory  of  Nyssa,  Or.  de  Deitate  Filii  et  Spiritus  Sajicti 
(Migne,  P.  G.  vol.  xlvi.,  p.  557). 

2  A  legendary  account  related  by  Sozomen  {H.  E.  vii.  6)  and 
Theodoret  {H.  E.  v.  16),  who  makes  Amphilochius  of  Iconium 
take  part  in  it,  represents  Theodosius  as  hesitating,  even  at  that 
time,  between  Arianism  and  orthodoxy.    Nothing  is  more  improbable. 

^  Kauffmann,  Aus  der  Schule  des  Wulfila,  p.  76. 

*  Migne,  P.  G.  vol.  Ixvii.,  p.  587,  note  34  ;  Mansi,  Concilia^  vol.  iii., 
p.  645. 


p.  577]  ARIAN  DISPUTES  457 

without  making  the  sHghtest  step  towards  conciliation. 
The  explanations  by  word  of  mouth  gave  no  more  sign 
of  any  desire  for  an  understanding.  There  is  a  tradition 
that  the  orthodox  party  proposed  that  they  should  adhere 
to  that  formula,  out  of  all  of  them,  which  should  represent 
the  teaching  of  the  ancient  Fathers,  ?>.,  of  those  who 
lived  before  the  appearance  of  Arianism  ;  and  that  this 
proposal  was  not  accepted.^  In  these  circumstances 
there  was  nothing  to  be  done  but  to  persevere  in  severe 
measures;  and  this  is  what  actually  happened.  A  new 
law  -  forbade  all  meetings  for  worship  —  public  or 
private — of  the  Eunomians,  Arians,  and  Macedonians,  in 
exactly  the  same  way  as  those  of  the  Manicheans  and 
similar  sects.  The  Novatians  alone  obtained  toleration 
for  their  churches. 

There  is  every  appearance  also  that,  if  not  in  law 
at  any  rate  in  fact,  it  was  the  same  with  the  Macedonians 
and  the  Arians.  Their  meetings  were  prohibited ;  but 
they  held  them  all  the  same,  and  the  police  shut  their 
eyes  ^  in  spite  of  the  complaints  of  some  of  the  bishops. 
What  object  was  to  be  served  by  severity  ?  The  sects  of 
themselves  were  journeying  to  their  end.  Every  day  they 
were  losing  adherents ;  those  who  remained  got  excited 
among  themselves,  quarrelled,  and  created  new  schisms. 
When  Demophilus  died  they  sought  for  his  successor 
in  Thrace,  a  certain  Marinus ;  other  Arians  acclaimed 
Dorotheus  who  had  been  dispossessed  of  his  bishopric 
of  Antioch.  At  one  on  the  fundamental  principle  of 
Arian  dogma,  the  two  parties  had  discovered  points  on 
which  they  could  not  agree.  Before  the  creation  of  the 
Son  could  God  have  been  called  Father?  Yes,  said 
Marinus  :  No,  declared  Dorotheus.  A  Syrian  pastry-cook, 
Theoctistus,  warmly  defended  the  ideas  of  Marinus  ;  hence 
the  disciples  of  the  latter  received  the  nickname  of  pastry- 

1  Socrates,  H.  E.  v.  lo,  who  evidently  exaggerates  the  part  played 
at  that  time  by  the  Novatians. 

2  Cod.  Theod.  xvi.  5,  11,  of  July  25,  383;  cf.  xvi.  5,  12,  and  13, 
which  belong  to  December  3  and  January  21  following. 

3  Socrates,  H.  E.  v.  20. 


458  THE  EAST  UNDER  THEODOSIUS     [ch.  xvi. 

cooks  {Psathyriani).  They  had  also  the  support  of  the 
Bishop  of  the  Goths,  Selenas,  the  successor  of  Ulfilas. 
This  gave  them  a  certain  standing,  but  did  not  prevent 
them  from  forming  fresh  divisions.  The  Psathyrian 
Bishop  of  Ephesus,  a  certain  Agapius,  had  disputes  with 
Marinus.  It  was  not  until  419  that  these  internal  quarrels 
were  reconciled.^ 

The  Eunomians,  who  indeed  were  no  less  divided 
amongst  themselves,  were  pursued  with  more  severity.  I 
have  spoken  before  of  the  successive  periods  of  exile  of 
their  prophet,  Eunomius.  His  followers  seem  to  have 
taken  pleasure  in  increasing  the  differences  which  separated 
them  from  orthodoxy.  They  even  went  so  far  as  to  change 
the  ritual  of  baptism,  from  which  they  eliminated  both  the 
triple  immersion  and  the  enumeration  of  the  Divine  Persons. 
No  sooner  were  they  provided  with  a  special  baptism, 
than  they  hastened  to  declare  it  to  be  the  only  ef^cacious 
one,  and  to  rebaptize  those  who  joined  them  from  the 
other  sects.  It  was  against  them  that  legislation  was 
directed,  in  rescripts  continually  renewed,-  and  that 
orthodox  theologians  directed  their  efforts  from  all  sides. 
St  Basil  of  Caesarea  had  inherited  this  controversy  from 
Basil  of  Ancyra  and  his  friends ;  his  brother,  Gregory  of 
Nyssa,  took  it  up  after  him.-^  Chrysostom,  at  Antioch, 
pronounced  a  large  number  of  discourses  against  the 
Anomoeans. 

^  Socrates,  H.  E.  v.  23. 

2  Cod.  Theod.  xvi.  5,  8,  11-13,  17,  23,  25,  27,  31,  32,  34,  36,  49,  SS, 
60,  65. 

^  The  Apologeticus  of  Eunomius,  an  explanation  of  doctrine, 
published  by  that  doctor  during  the  early  years  of  his  career  as  a 
theologian,  was  refuted  by  St  Basil,  who  has  thus  preserved  the  text 
of  it  for  us,  before  his  elevation  to  the  episcopate.  Eunomius  replied 
to  Basil ;  but  he  took  his  time,  and  his  reply  had  only  just  been 
published  when  Basil  died.  In  it,  the  Bishop  of  Caesarea  was 
attacked  personally  and  with  much  bitterness.  His  brothers,  Peter 
of  Sebaste  and  Gregory  of  Nyssa,  thought  there  was  occasion  for  an 
answer.  This  was  the  origin  of  the  twelve  books  of  Gregory  against 
Eunomius.  Apollinaris  and  Didymus  had  also  written  against  the 
Apologeticus, 


p.  579]  THE  NOVATIANS  AT  CONSTANTINOPLE  459 

3.  As/a  Minor. 

It  was  not  only  with  these  recent  forms  of  dissent,  all 
more   or   less    derived    from    the   heresy   of  Arius,   that 
Theodosius'  bishops  had  to  concern  themselves.     The  old 
sects  which  had  been  organized  since  the  second  and  third 
centuries,  continued  to  exist  and   to   divide   the    Church. 
The  Novatians,  who  had  enjoyed  toleration  for  a  consider- 
able period,^  were  very  numerous  in  Constantinople  and 
in  the  Asiatic    provinces   of  Bithynia,    Paphlagonia,  and 
Phrygia.     In  these  countries  of  simple  habits  a  severe  form 
of    religion    was    always    popular.     The    most    powerful 
Novatian    communities,   those   which    influenced    all    the 
others,  were   those  of  Constantinople,  Nicomedia,  Nicaea, 
and  Kotyason  (Kutahie).     The  historian  Socrates,  who  is 
very  well  informed  as  to  this  religious  sect,  relates  various 
particulars    of  the  Novatian   bishops  of  Constantinople — 
Acesius,^  who  was  alive  at   the   time   of  the    Council   of 
Nicaea,  and  who  had,  it  appeared,  borne  testimony  to  the 
/lof/ioousws ;    and  afterwards  Agelius,   persecuted  as  well 
as   the    Catholics  during   the   reigns   of  Constantius  and 
Valens.     Agelius  was  still  living  in  383  ;  he  took  part  in 
the  religious  conference  in  that  year.^     In  this  little  circle 
of  rigorists  there   were    a   few   distinguished    men,    who, 
either  through  family  tradition,  or  from  an  attraction  to  a 
more   refined    form    of  piety,  found    themselves   more   at 
home   there    than    among   the   multitudes   of  the   Great 
Church.       During    Valens'  reign  one  of  them,   Marcian, 
after  a  career  in  the  imperial  palace,  was  elevated  to  the 
priesthood  ;  he  was  very  learned,  and  his  beliefs  did  not 
prevent  the  emperor  from  entrusting  to  him    the  educa- 
tion of  his   daughters,   Anastasia   and    Carosa.     Marcian 
profited   by   this   favour   to   secure   a   mitigation   of    the 
severe    measures   from   which   his   co-religionists  were  at 
that   time  called    upon    to   suffer.*     His  son  Chrysanthus 
was  also  a  prominent  man  ;    under  Theodosius,  he  filled 

1  With  regard  to  their  position  under  Constantineand  Constantius, 
see  the  next  chapter.  -  Socrates,  J7.  E.  i.  10. 

■'  Ibid.t  ii.  38  ;  iv.  9  ;  V.  10.  •*  Ibid.^  iv.  9. 


460  THE  EAST  UNDER  THEODOSIUS     [ch.  xvi. 

the  office  of  Consularis  of  Italy,  and  Vicarius  of  the 
Britains.^  Another  Novatian  priest,  Sisinnius,  had 
formerly  attended  in  company  with  Julian  the  lectures  of 
Maximus  of  Ephesus.  Agelius,  before  his  death,  conse- 
crated Marcian  and  Sisinnius  bishops,  stipulating,  however, 
that  Marcian  should  exercise  episcopal  functions  first,  and 
that  Sisinnius  should  be  his  successor. 

The  plan  was  carried  out.  Marcian  had  a  good  deal 
of  difficulty  with  one  of  his  priests,  Sabbatius,  who  set 
himself  to  create  a  schism  with  regard  to  the  date  of 
Easter.  This  was  an  old  quarrel.  Among  the  Novatians, 
as  among  the  Catholics  before  the  Council  of  Nicsea,  there 
had  been  two  ways  of  fixing  the  Paschal  date :  some 
persons  decided  it  by  the  equinox,  and  these  were  the 
more  numerous ;  on  this  point,  the  Novatians  of  Rome 
and  of  Constantinople  were  in  agreement  with  the  Great 
Church ;  others,  like  the  Easterns  before  Nicaea  and  the 
Audians  afterwards,  followed  the  calculations  of  the  Jews. 
This  latter  use  had  been  accepted,  in  the  time  of  Valens, 
at  a  council  held  in  the  little  town  of  Pazos,  near  the 
sources  of  the  Sangarius,  by  a  certain  number  of  Novatian 
bishops  belonging  to  the  Phrygian  region.  Marcian 
dared  not  put  himself  in  conflict  with  them  ;  he  caused  it 
to  be  decided  in  a  synod,  that  each  might  celebrate  Easter 
according  to  the  use  which  he  preferred.- 

In  Phrygia,  the  Montanist  centre  at  Pepuza  still 
existed ;  its  influence  even  extended  far  enough  to  pro- 
voke repressive  legislation.  The  Montanists,  Priscillianists,^ 
Phrygians,  Pepuzians,  and  Tascodrugitee  are  mentioned 
from  time  to  time  in  the  Theodosian  Code.*  Every  year 
they  celebrated,  on  April  6,  a  great  ceremony,  which  was 
their  Feast  of  Easter.^  Some  of  them  were  converted 
from  time  to  time  ^ ;  but  the  further  progress  was  made, 
the  more  these  old  sects  tended  to  shut  themselves  off  in 

^  Socrates,  H.  E,  vii.  12.  '*'  Ibid.^  iv.  28  ;  v.  21. 

2  Disciples  of  the  prophetess  Priscilla  :  not  to  be  confounded  with 
the  PrisciUianists  of  Spain. 

^  xvi.  5,  10,  40,  48,  57,  65.  "  Sozomen,  H.  E.  vii.  18. 

«  Basil,  ^A  188. 


p.  582]  THE  MASSALIANS  461 

grim  exclusiveness.  There  were  also  the  devotees  of 
compulsory  encratism,  isolated  at  first,  but  now  grouped 
together  in  propagandist  confraternities,  varying  in  nomen- 
clature and  in  observances — Encratites,  Hydroparastatae, 
Apotactici,  Saccophori.^  These  last,  as  their  name 
indicates,  were  clothed  in  sacks.  Another  species  of 
fanatics  appeared  at  the  time  of  which  we  are  now  speak- 
ing. These  were  the  Massalians  or  Euchites.  These  two 
denominations,  the  first  of  which  was  Semitic,  the  other 
Greek,  may  be  defined  by  the  name  Prayers  (those  who 
pray).  The  movement  which  they  represent  came  origin- 
ally from  the  region  where  the  country  of  Syria  borders 
on  Armenia,  and  their  numbers  rapidly  increased  in  Syria 
and  in  Asia  Minor.  Epiphanius  mentions  them  in  his 
Panarion,  written  before  the  death  of  the  Emperor  Valens. 
At  the  outset,  the  Massalians  had  no  organization.  They 
were  people  who  had  renounced  all  their  possessions ; 
they  lived  entirely  upon  alms,  and  came  and  went,  always 
praying  and  doing  nothing  else.  When  night  came  they 
slept  anyhow,  men  and  women  together,  and  in  the  open 
air  as  far  as  possible.  With  the  offices  of  the  Church  and 
its  fasts  they  concerned  themselves  not  at  all.  It  was 
by  prayer  alone,  and  by  an  absolute  detachment  from  the 
goods  of  this  world,  that  they  held  communion  with  God 
and  His  saints — a  communion  so  close  that  they  did  not 
hesitate  to  attribute  to  themselves  the  designations  of 
angels,  prophets,  patriarchs,  and  Christs.  According  to 
them,  baptism  only  effaces  past  sins ;  it  does  not  prevent 
the  indwelling  in  every  man,  from  the  time  of  his  birth,  of 
an  evil  spirit  with  whom  he  has  to  struggle  incessantly. 
This  struggle  against  the  evil  spirits  filled  their  minds  to 
the  exclusion  of  everything  else ;  when  it  became  very 
violently  within  them,  they  were  seen  to  make  gestures 
as  though  shooting  arrows,  or  to  jump  into  the  air  with 
enormous  leaps,  sometimes  even  beginning  to  dance. 

These    Christian    dervishes  were  eminently  calculated 
to  cause  alarm  to  the  episcopate  of  that  day,  the  whole 
energies  of  which  were  devoted  to  the  task  of  restoring 
'  Basil,  Epp.  1 88,  199. 


462  THE  EAST  UNDER  THEODOSIUS     [ch.  xvi. 

peace  to  the  Church,  and  keeping  it  in  good  order.  The 
first  bishop  to  concern  himself  with  them  was  the 
Metropolitan  of  Iconium,  Amphilochius.  Presiding  over 
a  council  held  at  Side  in  Pamphylia,  he  severely  con- 
demned such  a  manner  of  life.  Information  of  this 
condemnation  was  given  to  Flavian,  the  Bishop  of 
Antioch,  who  with  the  support  of  several  bishops 
summoned  before  him  one  of  the  Massalian  leaders, 
Adelphius,  an  old  man  of  very  advanced  age.  Flavian 
succeeded  by  strategy  in  making  him  disclose  his  secrets, 
for  the  sect  had  secrets  and  disguised  them  with  the 
greatest  care.  For  the  second  time  the  Massalians  were 
condemned.  Flavian  besides  took  the  necessary  steps 
to  secure  the  acceptance  of  his  sentence  by  the  bishops  of 
Mesopotamia  and  Armenia  Minor,  the  country  in  which 
this  strange  sect  had  first  taken  root.^ 

But  these  disciplinary  measures,  and  the  legal  pro- 
hibitions which  followed  them,  were  far  from  putting  an 
end  to  Massalianism.  This  heresy  still  flourished  in 
Pamphylia  and  in  the  east  of  Asia  Minor  ;  and  in  Armenia 
also  it  long  gave  cause  for  anxiety. 

Amphilochius  of  Iconium,  whom  we  have  just  seen 
appearing  in  this  affair,  was  during  the  reign  of  Theodosius 
the  most  important  ecclesiastical  personage  in  the  whole  of 
Asia  Minor.  In  him,  far  more  than  in  his  own  kin,  Basil 
had  found  an  heir.  And,  in  fact,  it  was  Basil  who  had  made 
Amphilochius  what  he  was.  Educated  in  the  school  of 
Libanius,  who  always  preserved  a  great  affection  for 
him,  and  afterwards  an  advocate  at  Constantinople, 
Amphilochius  did  not  remain  long  in  the  world.  He 
was  living  in  retirement  in  Cappadocia  with  his  invalid 
father,  when,  towards  the  end  of  the  year  373,  Basil  was 
begged  by  the  people  of  Iconium  to  choose  for  them  a 
bishop.  His  choice  fell  upon  Amphilochius,  who  had 
scarcely  passed  his  thirtieth  year.  Just  at  this  time,  the 
town  of  Iconium  became  the  metropolis  of  a  new  province, 
that  of  Lycaonia,  formed  at  the  expense  of  Pisidia  and 

1  Upon  this  affair  see  Photius,  cod.  52,  who  gives  the  gist  of  a 
collection  of  official  documents  ;  cf.  Theodoret,  Haer.  fab.  iv.  11. 


p.  584-5]        AMPHILOCHIUS  OF  ICONIUM  463 

Isauria.  This  gave  rise  to  certain  special  difficulties, 
which  obliged  the  new  bishop  to  have  frequent  recourse 
to  the  wisdom  of  his  illustrious  protector.  Basil  did 
not  fail  him.  A  number  of  his  letters  are  addressed 
to  Amphilochius,  notably  his  three  synodical  letters,^ 
which  were  included  later  on  in  the  Greek  codes  of  canons 
with  an  authority  similar  to  that  which  clothes,  in  the 
Latin  collections,  the  Decretals  of  the  Popes.  The  Bishop 
of  Caesarea,  besides  finding  in  this  direction  food  for  his 
zeal,  was  glad  to  have,  in  the  heart  of  Asia  Minor,  a  man 
whom  he  could  thoroughly  trust,  and  who  was  full  of 
energy  and  devotion.  Through  him,  Basil  could  command 
the  persons  of  goodwill  scattered  throughout  Phrygia, 
Pisidia,  and  even  in  the  more  distant  provinces  of  Lycia 
and  Pamphylia.  Amphilochius  came  from  time  to  time 
to  Caesarea,  in  spite  of  the  difficulty  of  a  journey  across 
the  centra]  steppe  of  Asia  Minor.  Basil  also  put  in 
an  appearance  at  Iconium.  In  376,  he  sent  there  his 
Treatise  on  the  Holy  Spirit,  which  was  read  in  synod, 
and  sent  by  Amphilochius'  exertions  to  the  most  distant 
provinces,  as  a  preservative  against  the  propaganda  of 
the  Pneumatomachi. 

Under  such  guidance,  Amphilochius,  who  before  becom- 
ing a  bishop  had  scarcely  troubled  himself  at  all  about 
theology,  soon  developed  into  a  man  of  large  doctrinal 
knowledge,  and  became  a  kind  of  oracle.  Of  his  writings, 
however,  we  possess  little  more  than  fragments.-  As  we 
saw,  in  381  he  was  chosen,  with  his  neighbour  Optimus,  the 
Metropolitan  of  Pisidia,  as  the  centre  of  all  ecclesiastical 
relations  in  the  western  "  diocese  "  of  Asia  Minor.  They 
both  appear  to  have  lived  to  the  end  of  the  reign  of 
Theodosius.^  They  were  closely  allied  friends  with  Basil's 
brothers  and  also  with  Gregory  of  Nazianzus ;  and  in 
Constantinople    they  also  enjoyed  a  valuable   friendship, 

1  Epp.  188,  199,  217. 

2  Upon  Amphilochius,  see  the  monograph  of  Karl  Holl,  Amphilo- 
chius von  Iconium,  Tubingen,  1904.  Cf.  G.  Ficker,  Amphilochiana, 
part  i.,  Leipzig,  1906. 

^  Amphilochius  was  also  present  at  the  council  of  394. 


464  THE  EAST  UNDER  THEODOSIUS     [ch.  xvi. 

that  of  the  celebrated  matron  Olympias,  who  afterwards 
rendered  so  many  services  to  Chrysostom.^  It  was  in 
her  house  that  Optimus  died. 

In  Cappadocia  and  the  neighbouring  countries,  the 
memory  of  Basil  was  always  cherished,  being  represented 
by  his  family  and  his  friends.  Emmelia  had  lived  long 
enough  to  see  her  son  a  bishop ;  when  she  was  gone,  her 
eldest  daughter,  Macrina,  was  superior  of  the  monastery  of 
Annesi,  on  the  Iris,  which  had  been  established  by  them 
both,  opposite  the  place  where  Basil  himself  had  his 
hermitage.  Macrina  survived  her  mother  for  several  years, 
but  only  lived  a  few  months  after  Basil's  death.  Her 
youngest  brother,  Peter,  had  been  brought  up  under  her 
care,  and  shortly  after  her  death  he  was  elected  Bishop 
of  Sebaste.  Her  other  brother,  Gregory  of  Nyssa,  was 
present  during  her  dying  hours ;  their  last  conversations 
formed  the  groundwork  for  his  dialogue  on  *'  The  Soul 
and  the  Resurrection." 

The  Bishop  of  Nyssa  who,  up  to  that  time,  had  been 
treated  somewhat  loftily  by  his  great  brother,  Basil, 
now  obtained  considerable  importance.  He  was  an  orator, 
and  was  much  in  request  for  great  funeral  orations, 
and  other  ceremonial  discourses.  He,  whom  Basil  had 
thought  too  simple  to  be  sent  to  negotiate  with  Pope 
Damasus,  found  himself  entrusted  by  the  Council  of  381  ^ 
with  an  extremely  confidential  mission  to  the  bishops 
of  Arabia  and  Palestine ;  it  is  true  that  he  returned  from 
it  without  having  met  with  success.  He  was  a  theologian  : 
he  wrote  against  Eunomius^  and  against  Apollinaris ; 
we  owe  to  him  a  remarkable  exposition  of  doctrine,  called 
the  Great  Catechism,  and  many  other  slighter  treatises. 
His  Lives  of  Saint  Gregory  the  Wonder-worker,  and  of 
Saint  Macrina,  gives  him  a  place  among  hagiographers. 

Like  all  the  preachers  of  that  time,  he  discoursed  much 

^  Palladius,  Dial.  17. 

^  It  is  not  quite  certain  if  this  mission  was  from  the  Council  of 
Antioch  in  379,  or  from  that  of  Constantinople,  two  years  later.  I 
think  it  was  from  the  latter. 

•■'  Supra,  p.  458,  note  3. 


p.  587]  THE  TWO  GREGORYS  465 

upon  Holy  Scripture.  In  exegesis,  all  the  Cappadocians 
were  debtors  to  Origen.  Basil  and  Gregory  of  Nazianzus 
had  compiled  together,  under  the  title  of  Philocalia,  a 
collection  of  the  choicest  passages  of  the  great  Alexandrian 
Doctor.  However,  they  had  abstained  from  adopting 
those  of  his  opinions  which  went  beyond  the  accepted 
teaching.  Gregory  of  Nyssa  was  less  careful.  He  allowed 
himself  to  be  led  astray  by  the  doctrine  of  the  final 
restoration  (aTro/caracrTao-/?),  i.e.,  of  universal  salvation 
as  destined  to  extend  at  last  to  the  worst  of  men,  and 
even  to  the  evil  spirits  themselves. 

The  other  Gregory,  the  ex-Bishop  of  Constantinople, 
had  retired  to  his  own  country  of  Nazianzus.  Before 
leaving  the  capital,  he  had  made  his  will  —  a  curious 
document,  which  is  preserved  amongst  his  works.  There 
was  no  bishop  then  in  Nazianzus.  Since  the  death  of 
the  elder  Gregory,  the  see  had  remained  unfilled.  His 
son  had  not  the  least  idea  of  establishing  himself  in  it : 
his  alleged  translations  from  one  see  to  another  had 
brought  him  too  many  vexations  for  him  to  dream  of 
allowing  himself  another.  Nevertheless,  it  was  impossible 
to  him  not  to  take  an  interest  in  this  Church.  He 
governed  it  from  Arianzus,  an  estate  belonging  to  his 
family,  where  he  usually  lived.  His  ill-luck  had  eaten 
into  his  heart.  The  bitter  memory  which  he  retained  of 
it  is  reproduced  in  his  letters  and  verses.  For  he  wrote  a 
great  deal ;  nearly  all  his  letters  belong  to  these  closing 
years.  He  now  had  to  spend  Lent  without  uttering  a 
single  word,  and  this  was  certainly  a  heavy  penance  both 
for  himself  and  for  others ;  but  his  pen  was  never  at  rest. 

Among  the  clergy  of  Nazianzus  there  was  an 
Apollinarian  party :  and  this  complicated  the  situation. 
The  bishops  of  that  region — with  Theodore,  the  new 
Metropolitan  of  Tyana,  at  their  head — saw  no  objection 
to  the  vacancy  being  prolonged  under  such  an  adminis- 
trator, and  it  was  this  which  made  it  so  difficult  for 
Gregory  to  find  a  successor  to  his  father ;  but  there  was 
further  the  fear  that  even  if  the  bishops  consented  to  an 
election,  a  candidate  would  be  proposed  to  them  whose 
II  2  G 


466  THE  EAST  UNDER  THEODOSIUS     [ch.  xvi. 

orthodoxy  was  doubtful.  It  was  in  these  circumstances 
that  Gregory  wrote  to  Cledonius,  one  of  the  priests  of 
Nazianzus,  two  letters  in  which  he  deals,  in  opposition  to 
the  Apollinarians,  with  the  subject  of  the  Incarnation. 
These  letters  became  later  as  famous  as  his  discourses 
upon  the  Trinity ;  in  the  controversies  of  later  centuries 
we  find  them  continually  appealed  to.  But,  at  the  time, 
they  produced  no  effect  at  Nazianzus.  The  Apollinarians, 
taking  advantage  of  an  illness  which  kept  Gregory  at  a 
distance,  succeeded  in  appointing  a  bishop  of  their  own. 
This  was  too  much :  Gregory  protested ;  the  governor 
rid  him  of  the  intruder,  and  the  bishops  of  Cappadocia  at 
length  filled  up  the  vacancy  in  the  threatened  Church. 

Gregory  lived  for  some  years  longer  in  retirement  and 
the  practice  of  austerities,  but  never  ceasing  to  interest 
himself  in  local  affairs,  nor  even  in  the  general  interests  of 
the  Church.  By  his  poetical  compositions  he  sought  to 
counteract  those  of  Apollinaris ;  he  ever  kept  a  watchful 
eye  upon  that  party,  which  was  then  very  active  in  spite 
of  all  the  condemnations  which  had  been  heaped  upon  it. 
The  Apollinarians  took  advantage  of  the  toleration  of 
Theodosius,  who  gladly  allowed  the  laws  with  regard  to 
heretics  to  lie  dormant,  and  of  the  indolence  of  Nectarius, 
who  seemed  never  inclined  to  reawaken  them.  Gregory 
thought  it  his  duty,  from  the  depth  of  his  retirement,  to 
address  expostulations  to  his  successor  ^  for  this.  It  was 
undoubtedly  to  his  intervention  that  the  Apollinarians 
owed  the  law  made  in  388  by  which  their  religious 
organization  was  once  more  proscribed.  Gregory  died 
in  389  or  390. 

The  island  of  Cyprus  held  constant  communication 
with  Southern  Asia  Minor.  At  the  time  of  which  we  are 
now  treating,  this  island  formed  in  civil  matters  a  province 
by  itself,  and  its  metropolis,  Salamis,  had  as  bishop, 
Epiphanius,^  a  holy  man,  who  was  renowned  throughout 
the  East.  The  unanimous  vote  of  the  Cypriots,  in  367, 
had  drawn  him  from  his  monastery  at  Eleutheropolis  in 
Palestine,  where  he  had  long  led  a  life  of  austerity  and 
'  Ep.  202.  ^  Supra,  p.  406. 


p.  590]  EPIPHANIUS  OF  SALAMIS  467 

study.  I  have  already  told  how  this  monastic  foundation 
was  the  result  of  quite  a  long  stay  which  Epiphanius  had 
made  in  Egypt  in  his  early  youth.  It  was  not  only  with 
solitaries  that  he  had  been  in  touch  there  ;  he  had  also 
come  across  many  heretics,  whose  eccentricities  attracted 
his  attention.  He  even  came  very  near  forming  too 
intimate  an  acquaintance  with  them.  Some  Gnostic  ladies 
took  an  interest  in  him,  and  wished  to  initiate  him  in  their 
redemptive  ceremonies.  But  fortunately  he  began  by 
reading  their  books,  which  enlightened  him  as  to  the 
intentions  of  these  female  doctors :  Joseph,  once  again, 
escaped  from  the  harem  of  Potiphar !  He  took  his 
revenge  for  this  adventure  by  denouncing  to  the  bishop 
of  the  place  all  the  sectaries  he  knew ;  the  bishop  put  the 
matter  in  the  hands  of  the  police,  and  eighty  persons  were 
driven  out  of  the  town.^ 

It  was  clearly  to  this  time  that  Epiphanius'  intense 
hatred  for  heretics  went  back.  He  soon  began  to  seek 
information  as  to  their  history,  and  to  collect  books  and 
documents  likely  to  instruct  him  thereon.  But  he  did  not 
write  anything  on  the  subject  until  he  became  bishop.  It 
was  at  the  request  of  certain  people  at  Syedra  in  Pam- 
phylia  that  he  composed  first  (on  the  Trinitarian  heresies 
of  the  day)  a  treatise  called  Ancoratus,  at  the  end  of  which 
appeared,  for  the  first  time,  the  Creed  which  we  now  use 
under  the  name  of  the  Creed  of  Nicaea.  Shortly  after- 
wards, two  Syrian  hermits,  Acacius  and  Paul,  exhorted 
him  to  undertake  a  general  refutation  of  all  heresies.  He 
laboured  at  it  for  several  years,  from  374  to  377  ;  this 
second  compilation  received  the  name  of  Panarion. 
Eighty  heresies  are  there  described  and  controverted. 
The  series  opens  with  the  philosophical  sects — Stoics, 
Platonists,  and  Pythagoreans ;  then  he  passes  on  to  the 
Samaritan  and  Jewish  sects ;  and  finally,  beginning  with 
Simon,  we  arrive  at  the  Christian  heresies.  The  ancient 
authorsofheresiologies,  especially  Irena^usand  Hippolytus,'-' 
are  laid  very  largely  under  contribution  ;  certain  refutations 
of  special  heresies,  and  even  some  heretical  books,  have  also 
1  Haer.  xxvi.  17.  -  See  Vol.  I.,  p.  227. 


468  THE  EAST  UNDER  THEODOSIUS     [ch.  xvi. 

been  ransacked.  And  finally,  on  a  great  many  points, 
especially  in  connection  with  contemporary  forms  of 
dissent,  Epiphanius  speaks  from  his  own  personal 
experience.  In  more  than  one  passage  he  makes  use  of 
stories  or  of  facts  collected  by  himself  during  his  stay  in 
Egypt.  At  that  time,  already  long  past,  he  was  the 
same  simple  and  artless  man  that  he  remained  all  his  life. 
It  was  not  only  with  ladies  who  were  adherents  of 
Carpocrates  that  he  came  into  contact.  The  Meletians 
laid  hold  of  him  in  their  turn  and  romanced  to  him  about 
their  early  history.  With  regard  to  Origen  also  many 
stories  were  palmed  off  on  him.  And  although  it  would 
have  been  so  easy  for  him  to  discover  the  true  history  of 
that  eminent  man  from  the  writings  of  Pamphilus  and  of 
Eusebius,  he  relates  to  us  absurd  legends  in  connection 
with  him.  Of  course  we  have  no  reason  to  reproach  Epi- 
phanius for  his  dislike  of  Origen's  opinions.  Many  others 
before  him  had  condemned  them,  especially  Methodius, 
whose  polemics  he  appropriated.  But  for  Epiphanius 
Origen  was  the  responsible  author  of  all  the  heresies  which 
were  distracting  the  Church  as  he  saw  it ;  hence  he  lost  no 
opportunity  of  attacking  him  with  a  fury  which  amounted 
to  mania.  Epiphanius  knew  five  languages^;  and  he  set 
himself  to  use  them,  in  order  to  slander  Origen  throughout 
the  whole  world. 

Thoroughly  orthodox,  and  a  most  enthusiastic  admirer 
of  Athanasius,  Epiphanius  necessarily  took  the  part  of 
Paulinus  against  Meletius.  But  this  did  not  hinder  him 
from  being  on  good  terms  with  Basil,  and  accepting 
the  three  hypostases.^  Although  he  inveighed  against 
Hellenic  culture  as  represented  by  Origen,  he  was  in 
no  wise  an  enemy  of  learning :  he  held  Apollinaris  in 
great  veneration,  and  was  a  friend  of  St  Jerome.  The 
fall  of  Apollinaris  was  a  deep  grief  to  him  ;  but  he  had  no 

1  Greek,  Egyptian,  Syriac,  Hebrew,  and  Latin.  As  to  his  Latin, 
Jerome  {Adv.  Ruf.  ii.  22)  says  that  he  knew  this  last  language  ex 
parte.  In  actual  fact,  he  never  wrote  except  in  Greek,  and  that  very 
badly. 

2  Basil,  Ep.  258. 


p.  592-3]  APOLLINARIANISM  469 

hesitation  in  giving   to  the   Dimcerites,  as  he  called    the 
Apollinarians,  a  place  in  his  gallery  of  heretics. 


4.  Apollinarianisfu. 

ApolHnaris,  as  we  saw  above/  was  at  Laodicea,  bishop 
of  a  Little  Church  closely  resembling  that  of  Paulinus  at 
Antioch.  He  was  a  man  of  very  wide  culture.  Of  all  the 
highly  educated  Christians  in  the  East  at  that  time,  he  was 
by  far  the  most  prominent,  and  certainly  the  most  prolific 
in  his  writings.  He  had  fought  for  the  common  faith 
against  Porphyry  and  against  Eunomius^;  in  Julian's 
reign,  he  had  written  a  whole  series  of  classic  stories 
taken  from  the  Bible,  to  replace  the  authors  of  Greek 
antiquity  who  were  then  forbidden  to  the  Christians.  His 
exegesis  was  famous.  Repudiating  the  ancient  allegoriz- 
ing, which  Origen  and  his  imitators  had  so  greatly  abused, 
he  explained  the  Sacred  Books  in  their  natural  sense. 
This  new  departure  was  gladly  welcomed,  although  it 
was  not  without  its  inconveniences.  By  following  this 
method,  ApolHnaris  found  himself  led  to  deduce  from  the 
Apocalypse  the  promise  of  the  Reign  of  a  Thousand 
Years,  and  of  an  earthly  restoration  of  the  Temple  and 
of  the  Law.  The  time  when  such  ideas  as  these  had  been 
popular  was  long  past ;  in  the  East,  they  were  quite  out  of 
fashion.  These  Judaizing  ways  of  regarding  it  had  done 
injustice  to  the  Apocalypse  itself:  many  Churches  refused 
to  it  the  status  of  a  Canonical  Book. 

But  it  was  especially  by  his  theology  that  ApolHnaris 
laid  himself  open  to  criticism.  The  friends  of  Meletius, 
who  looked  upon  the  Church  of  Paulinus  as  tainted 
with  Sabellianism,  had  no  hesitation  in  attributing  to 
ApolHnaris  language  which  was  compromising  from  this 
point  of  view.^  It  appears,  however,  that  upon  the 
question   of  the   Trinity  there  was  nothing  serious  with 

'  Supra,  p.  273. 

-  According  to  Epiphanius,  Haer.  Ixxvii.  24,  he  would   seem   to 
have  been  exiled  by  the  Arians. 
^  Basil,  Ep.  129. 


470  THE  EAST  UNDER  THEODOSIUS     [ch.  xvi. 

which  to  reproach  him.  It  was  upon  another  point  that 
his  doctrine  raised  difficulties.  And  here  some  explana- 
tions are  necessary. 

At  the  time  when  Apollinaris  appeared  upon  the  scene, 
the  Church  had  settled  upon  the  terms  in  which  thence- 
forth it  was  to  explain  the  sense  in  which  it  understands 
the  relationship  between  the  Unity  of  God  and  the 
Divinity  of  Jesus  Christ.  The  Divine  Being  manifested 
in  Jesus  is  absolutely  identical  with  the  One  and  Only 
God  recognized  by  Christianity ;  He  is  distinguished, 
however,  by  a  differentia  {specialite),  obviously  mysterious 
and  incomprehensible,  which,  in  the  language  of  the  New 
Testament,  by  which  that  of  the  Church  guides  itself,  is 
expressed  by  the  relationship  of  Son  to  Father.  Hence 
arises  the  distinction  of  "  Persons,"  to  use  the  terminology 
of  the  West — of  "  Hypostases,"  in  that  of  the  East.  To 
the  two  Hypostases  or  Persons  of  the  Father  and  the 
Son  is  added,  by  an  analogous  distinction,  the  third 
Hypostasis  or  Person  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  In  this  way 
is  constituted  the  "  Trinity  "  of  theology  ;  thus  the  Christian 
tradition  is  formulated,  as  clearly  as  such  a  mystery  allows, 
in  the  philosophical  language  of  the  time. 

Another  problem  remained  to  be  solved.  What  is  the 
exact  relationship  between  the  human  form  of  Jesus  and 
the  Divine  Being  which  is  united  to  it  ?  What  degree  of 
human  reality  must  be  acknowledged  in  the  Christ  whom 
the  Apostles  knew,  and  with  whom  they  lived  and  con- 
versed ?  Christians  of  Hellenic  education,  whose  numbers 
were  swelled  by  the  early  preachings  to  the  heathen,  found 
themselves  quite  at  the  outset  attracted  by  an  explanation 
which  was  very  natural  from  their  point  of  view.  The 
human  form,  the  human  life  of  Christ,  including  in  that 
His  Passion  and  His  Resurrection,  was  only  a  succession 
of  appearances.  Was  it  not  thus  that  the  gods  made  them- 
selves visible  ?  Jupiter  and  his  companions,  when  they 
showed  themselves  upon  earth,  assumed  a  material  form, 
most  frequently  the  human  form.  Everyone  had  become 
familiar  with  the  magical  operations  which  changed  the 
exterior  of  beings,  and  allowed  invisible  spirits  to  manifest 


p.  595]  EARLY  CHRISTOLOGY  471 

themselves.  In  the  Bible  itself  divine  apparitions  were 
frequently  mentioned  ;  stories  like  that  of  Tobit  and  his 
journey  with  the  angel  Raphael  popularized  the  idea  of 
beings,  invisible  in  their  proper  nature,  but  clothing 
themselves  on  occasion  in  human  semblances,  and  seem- 
ing then  to  belong  to  humanity.  We  must  not  be 
astonished  that,  in  the  time  of  Trajan,  St  Ignatius  of 
Antioch  had  so  much  difficulty  with  the  theory  of 
"apparent"  Incarnation — Docetism,  as  it  was  called.  A 
hundred  years  later,  his  successor  Serapion  discovered  at 
Antioch  a  sect  of  "  Docetae,"  with  an  organization  and 
sacred  books  of  its  own.  Moreover,  the  Gnostics  and  the 
Marcionites  had  immediately  appropriated  this  conception, 
which  fitted  in  wonderfully  well  with  their  dualist 
ideas.  In  the  4th  century  there  were  still  Docetae  at 
Antioch,  and  we  find  the  interpolator  of  the  letters  of 
Ignatius  waging  war  against  the  Christology  of  "  apparent " 
manifestations.  In  certain  places,  it  had  taken  special 
forms :  some  said  that  the  flesh  of  Christ  came  from 
Heaven,  that  it  represented  a  physical  humiliation 
{an^antissemenf)  of  the  Divinity,  and  that  it  owed  nothing 
to  the  natural  development  by  which  the  child  originates 
from  its  mother.  Athanasius,  when  already  near  the  end 
of  his  life,  wrote  on  this  subject  to  Epictetus,  the  Bishop 
of  Corinth,  in  whose  diocese  these  ideas  had  become 
prevalent.  Shortly  afterwards,  we  find  them  contested  by 
St  Basil,  in  a  letter  addressed  to  the  people  of  Sozopolis 
in  Pisidia.  At  the  root  of  this  system  was  always  to  be 
found  the  assumption  of  the  incompatibility  between 
human  infirmities  and  the  Divine  Majesty :  this  assump- 
tion did  not  disappear :  we  meet  with  it  again  in  the 
controversies  of  the  centuries  which  followed. 

Far  from  being  dismayed  at  such  a  conception, 
Christian  mysticism,  as  St  Athanasius  so  happily 
formulated  it,  enthusiastically  embraced  the  idea  that 
God  willed  to  clothe  Himself  with  all  our  weaknesses, 
that  He  might  transform  them  into  Divine  strength  ;  that 
He  willed  to  become  Man,  in  order  to  make  us  divine : 
a\)TO<i  yap  ei'>]vOpw7n]crei'  "iva   tj/mei^  OeoTroifjOco/aei'.      But  if  it 


472  THE  EAST  UNDER  THEODOSIUS     [ch.  xvi. 

is  possible  to  speak  of  such  matters  as  these  in  the 
language  of  religion,  it  is  difficult  to  express  them  in  the 
terms  of  philosophy.  There  were  not  wanting  people,  in 
the  4th  century,  who  thought  that  they  could  settle  every- 
thing by  saying  that  the  Divine  Word  had  taken  in  Jesus 
the  place  of  the  soul,  and  that  Christ  was  composed  of  a 
human  body  and  a  Divine  soul.  So  thought  Arius,  and 
he  was  not  the  only  one.  Even  among  uncompromising 
Catholics,  even  among  the  associates  of  Apollinaris,  this 
combination  found  supporters.  Apollinaris  himself  had 
arrived  at  a  somewhat  different  solution.  Starting  from 
the  distinction  between  body,  soul,  and  mind,  he  admitted 
that  Jesus  had  received  from  humanity  a  body  inspired  by 
a  soul  {un  corps  animi),  but  that  the  human  mind  {yov^)  had 
been  replaced  in  Him  by  the  Divine  element.  Apart  from 
this  collocation,  he  saw  no  means  of  preserving  the  Unity 
of  Christ.  Those  who  represented  Him  to  themselves  as 
formed  of  the  Divinity  and  of  a  complete  humanity, 
seemed  to  him  madmen,  capable  of  believing  in  centaurs, 
the  hippogrifif,  and  other  fabulous  creatures. 

This  assertion  which  Apollinaris  treated  as  absurd 
was  nevertheless  maintained  in  Antioch  itself  by  a  great 
many  persons  who  were  by  no  means  strangers  to  theo- 
logical culture.  For  Diodore  and  his  followers,  the  mind 
in  Jesus  was  a  human  mind.  But  they  did  not  on  that 
account  deny  the  Unity  of  Christ,  and  tried  to  reconcile 
it  with  their  way  of  thinking.  Perhaps  their  explanations 
left  something  to  be  desired ;  they  had  to  be  completed 
later  on.  Just  then  it  was  the  system  of  Apollinaris 
which  offended  traditional  feeling. 

It  took,  however,  some  time  before  matters  arrived  at 
a  crisis.  At  the  time  of  the  Council  of  Alexandria  in  362 
the  theory  was  already  known  ;  Athanasius,  who  earnestly 
desired  peace  just  then,  seems  to  have  changed  his  tactics, 
and  to  have  been  satisfied  with  ingenious  explanations. 
Apollinaris  had  conceded  to  him  that  Christ  possessed 
a  soul  and  a  mind,  without  specifying  whether  this  mind 
were  human  or  Divine.  Athanasius  had  asked  no  more 
of  him.      Apollinaris   was    so    much    respected,    the    old 


1'.  597-9]  VIEWS  OF  APOLLINARIS  473 

Nicene  party  in  the  East  thought  themselves  so  fortunate 
in  possessing  a  scholar  of  such  distinction,  that  there  was 
a  tendency  on  their  part  to  shut  their  eyes  to  anything 
in  his  teaching  which  was  possibly  open  to  criticism. 
So  long  as  Athanasius  lived,  it  does  not  appear  that  the 
Christology  of  Laodicea  caused  any  scandal  in  Alexandria.^ 
Even  in  Syria  it  was  some  time  before  anyone  began 
to  consider  carefully  what  objection  there  was  to  it. 

It  seems,  too,-  that  with  Apollinaris  himself  the 
question  long  remained  in  the  sphere  of  academic  disputa- 
tions. Diodore  and  Flavian  exchanged  refutations  with 
him ;  and  he  maintained  his  own  opinions  in  various 
explanatory  treatises.  In  spite  of  all  the  trials  to  which 
they  were  exposed  during  Valens'  reign,  the  Catholics 
of  Antioch  found  time  to  argue  fiercely  on  the  matter 
both  for  and  against.  The  dispute  did  not  assume  an 
ecclesiastical  character  until  one  of  the  friends  of 
Apollinaris — Vitalis  a  priest  of  Meletius  like  Flavian  and 
Diodore — left  that  party  and  joined  the  Church  of 
Paulinus.  To  this  Church  he  rendered  a  great  service 
at  the  outset  by  obtaining  for  it  the  alliance  of  the 
Roman  Church.  He  travelled  to  Italy,  saw  Pope 
Damasus,  and  obtained  from  him  letters  recognizing 
Paulinus.  I  have  already  told  how  Damasus,  uneasy  on 
account  of  what  others  told  him  of  Vitalis,  changed  his 
mind,  and  ordered  that  he  was  only  to  be  received  under 
certain  conditions.  To  accept  them  would  have  been, 
for  Vitalis,  to  betray  his  former  attitude.  He  remained 
faithful  to  Apollinaris.     Being  expelled  by  Paulinus,  and 

1  The  writings  of  Athanasius  against  ApolHnaris  are  entirely  un- 
authentic. 

'^  The  history  of  ApolHnaris  is  full  of  obscurities  ;  his  contempor- 
aries tell  us  but  little  about  him  ;  and  as  to  his  writings,  they  have 
been  suppressed  for  the  most  part,  or  placed  under  false  names. 
Driiseke,  Apollinarios  von  Laodicea  in  the  Texte  und  Unterstichungen ^ 
vol.  vii.  (1892),  has  tried  to  reconstruct  his  work  in  dogmatics  ;  but 
all  the  attributions  are  not  equally  certain.  The  most  important 
of  these  writings  are  the  treatise,  Tepi  tj^s  ^ei'as  aapKuicreoos  t^s  KaO'  ofMoluKnif 
avOpth-wov,  reconstructed  by  Draseke  from  quotations,  op.  cit.,  p.  381  ; 
and  the  profession  of  faith  Kara  n^pos  Trian^  (p.  369)  placed  under  the 
name  of  St  Gregory  Thaumaturgus. 


474  THE  EAST  UNDER  THEODOSIUS     [ch.  xyi 

having  no  longer  any  position  in  the  Church  of  Meletius, 
he  did  not  hesitate  to  found  another  Church :  through 
his  exertions,  and  in  his  own  person,  Antioch  possessed 
a  third  bishop,  not  to  mention  of  course  the  official 
Bishop  Euzoius,  who  was  an  Arian.  It  was  at  this  time 
that  Epiphanius,  who,  from  his  island  of  Cyprus,  was 
following  all  these  movements  with  care,  made  up  his 
mind  to  visit  Antioch,  and  to  find  out  what  truth  there 
was  in  the  reports  which  reached  him.  He  conversed 
with  Paulinus,  who  was  represented  as  a  Sabellian  by 
Vitalis ;  Paulinus  had  no  difficulty  in  clearing  himself 
As  to  Vitalis,  Epiphanius  saw  with  pleasure  that  he 
repudiated  the  absurd  doctrines  put  forward  by  Docetae 
of  various  types,  but  with  regret  that  he  adopted  a  theory 
representing  Christ  as  imperfectly  man — the  Word  per- 
forming in  Him  the  functions  of  the  mind.^  Epiphanius 
reasoned  with  Vitalis  in  vain,  and  was  obliged  to  return 
home  in  great  distress. 

However,  Pope  Damasus,  without  mentioning  Apolli- 
naris  by  name,  condemned  his  Christology,  at  the  same 
time  reprobating  all  those  who  divided  Christ  into  two 
persons — the  Son  of  man  and  the  Son  of  God.  For 
this  latter  theory  no  one  in  the  East  held  himself 
responsible ;  but  the  Apollinarians  were  always  trying 
to  drive  their  adversaries  into  it.  The  Egyptian  bishops 
exiled  in  Palestine  had  declared  in  their  turn  against 
Apollinaris.^  The  new  dogma  had  thus  against  it  both 
Rome  and  orthodox  Egypt.  It  is  strange  that  Vitalis 
and  Apollinaris  should  have  thought  of  resisting.  What 
could  they  expect  ?  All  those  who  in  the  East  were 
supporters  of  Meletius  and  Basil  had  long  mistrusted 
them  :  did  they  not  belong  to  the  "  Little  "  Church  ?  Now, 
when  even  the  Little  Church  rejected  them,  and  when 
its  protectors  in  the  West  and  in  Egypt  expressly 
condemned  them,  upon  what  support  could  they  count  ? 

Nevertheless,    they     braved    the    risk.      Besides    the 

^  See  a  curious  account  of  this  interview    in  Epiphanius,  Haer. 
Ixxvii.  20-23. 

^  Basil,  Ep.  265. 


p.  600]      APOLLINARIANISM  CONDEMNED  475 

two  Churches  of  Antioch  and  Laodicea,  they  also 
organized  another  at  Berytus,  of  which  a  certain 
Timothy  became  bishop.  Other  bishops  were  conse- 
crated and  sent  to  a  distance.  From  the  year  377  on- 
wards, Basil  complains  bitterly  of  their  propaganda  ;  their 
emissaries  were  everywhere  abroad,  trying  to  divide  the 
Churches.  We  have  seen  that  immediately  after  the 
death  of  Valens  this  party  endeavoured  to  lay  hands 
upon  the  Church  of  Constantinople,  and  that  it  was 
daring  enough  to  make  an  attempt  at  Nazianzus  itself 
in  opposition  to  the  illustrious  Gregory. 

It  was  impossible  that  such  attempts  could  meet  with 
success.  Rome,  Alexandria,  Antioch  (both  the  Little 
Church  and  the  Great  one)  multiplied  their  condemnations; 
the  Oecumenical  Council  of  381  placed  the  Apollinarians 
in  the  catalogue  of  heretics,  at  the  same  time  as  it 
ensured  in  the  East  the  predominance  of  their  most 
avowed  enemies.  Then  came  finally,  in  383  and  later, 
the  imperial  laws,^  which  classed  them  with  the  Eunomians, 
Arians,  and  Macedonians  ;  they  were  forbidden  to  hold 
meetings  and  to  have  clergy  of  their  own. 

Being  thus  repressed,  the  movement  was  arrested  or, 
rather,  it  disguised  itself  An  Apollinarian  Church  was 
no  longer  possible,  if  it  ever  had  been  ;  it  remained  a 
mere  School,  without  any  apparent  organization.  Its 
master  lived  on  for  some  years,  in  a  shadow  which  we 
cannot  succeed  in  penetrating.  He  seems  to  have  continued 
to  write.  When  he  was  dead,  his  disciples,  to  preserve 
his  compositions,  adopted  the  plan  of  dissembling  them 
under  borrowed  names.  In  this  way,  their  circulation  was 
maintained  ;  Gregory  Thaumaturgus,Athanasius, and  Popes 
Dionysius,  Felix,  and  Julius,  were  invoked  to  shield  with 
their  patronage  the  works  of  Apollinaris  and  his  school. 
This  fraud  met  with  great  success  :  it  made  many  victims 
in  the  next  century.'- 

'  Cod.  Theod.  xvi.,  5,  12,  13,  14,  33. 

2  Leontius  of  Byzantium  (?)  Adv.  fraudes  Apollinarisfaruvi, 
Migne,  P.  G.  vol.  Ixxxvi.'^,  p.  1948. 


476  THE  EAST  UNDER  THEODOSIUS     [ch.  xvi. 


5.  Syria. 

Diodore  and  Flavian,  the  two  champions  of  the 
orthodox  faith  in  the  gloomy  days  of  Constantius  and 
Valens,  were  now  presiding  over  the  Churches  of  the 
East,  the  one  as  Bishop  of  Tarsus  and  Metropolitan  of 
Cilicia,  the  other  as  Bishop  of  Antioch.  Until  his  pro- 
motion to  the  episcopate  in  378,  Diodore  had  lived  at 
Antioch,  where  he  was  much  honoured.  He  was,  like 
Apollinaris,  a  learned  man,  nurtured  in  the  philosophy  of 
Aristotle,  and  well  versed  in  exegesis  of  the  most  solid 
kind.  He  wrote  a  great  deal  upon  all  kinds  of  subjects, 
provided  always  that  they  had  a  religious  interest.  It  was 
not  only  against  the  Arians  and  against  Apollinaris  that  he 
directed  his  polemics ;  pagans  and  philosophers  also 
employed  his  pen.  Amid  the  frivolities  of  the  great  town, 
he  managed  to  practise  the  most  rigorous  asceticism. 
His  thinness  was  talked  of  far  and  wide ;  he  looked  like  a 
skeleton.  The  Emperor  Julian,  who  knew  him  and  did 
not  love  him,  alleged  that  it  was  a  punishment  inflicted  by 
the  gods  of  Olympus.^ 

At  the  time  when  Julian  gave  currency  to  this  idea, 
Diodore  the  thin  had  still  more  than  thirty  years  to  live. 
Before  leaving  Antioch,  he  trained  there  two  young  people, 
both  of  whom  were  called  to  great  renown :  Theodore, 
who  like  his  master  transferred  himself  later  to  Cilicia, 
where  he  died  Bishop  of  Mopsuestia ;  and  John,  after- 
wards surnamed  Chrysostom,  who  was  destined  to  so  much 
success  as  an  orator,  and  to  be  the  centre  of  such  pitiable 
tragedies.  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia  was  the  father  of 
Nestorianism ;  Diodore  was  its  grandfather.  A  bitter 
enemy  of  Apollinaris,  he  had  succeeded  in  maintaining 
against  him  the  absolute  and  integral  Humanity  of  Christ, 
and  in  thus  saving  for  future  generations  the  historical 
sense  of  the  Gospels.  But  he  had  not  succeeded  in 
finding,  to  express  the  relation  between  the  Humanity 
of  Jesus  Christ  and  His  Divinity,  a  formula  which  could 

1  Julian,  Ep.  79. 


p.  603]  DIODORE  AND  CHRYSOSTOM  477 

satisfy  the  religious  requirements  of  that  grave  problem. 
Between  the  two  "  natures  "  ^  he  admitted  only  a  moral 
bond.  The  terms,  "two  Sons,"  "two  Persons,"  were 
avoided ;  but  in  reality,  Diodore  and  his  followers 
represented  Christ  to  themselves  as  a  prophet  "  possessed  " 
by  the  Divinity — not  in  a  transitory  and  partial  way  like 
the  old  prophets  of  Israel,  but  in  a  manner  which  was 
permanent,  perpetual,  and  complete.  With  such  ideas, 
they  could  not  reach  that  contact,  that  penetration, 
which  is  demanded  alike  by  the  language  of  the  Gospel : 
"  The  Word  was  made  Flesh,"  and  by  the  mystical 
formula  :  "  God  became  Man  to  make  us  divine."  They 
approached  rather  to  the  conceptions  which  had  been 
defended  in  bygone  days  at  Antioch  itself  by  Paul  of 
Samosata. 

But,  pending  criticisms  which  were  soon  to  follow, 
and  not  only  from  the  ApoUinarian  side,  Diodore  was 
for  the  moment  the  oracle  in  theology  of  the  dominant 
Church. 

Flavian,  when  he  became  Bishop  of  Antioch,  was 
already  far  advanced  in  years,  for  he  could  remember 
the  discourses  of  Bishop  Eustathius.  He  has  left  no 
reputation  as  a  writer.  Like  Nectarius  at  Constantinople, 
he  was  a  good  and  peace-making  pastor.  For  his  flock 
the  time  of  acute  struggle  was  over ;  the  old  warrior  took 
his  rest.  He  could  do  so  with  the  greater  security,  because 
he  soon  found  himself  provided  with  an  admirable  fellow- 
worker  in  the  person  of  Chrysostom.  Like  Diodore, 
Theodore,  and  Flavian  himself,  John  had  sprung  from  a 
distinguished  family.  Libanius  had  had  him  as  a  pupil : 
it  was  a  fact  on  which  he  long  congratulated  himself;  we 
are  even  told  that  at  the  hour  of  his  death  the  famous 
rhetorician  named  his  Christian  disciple  to  succeed  him 
in  his  chair  of  eloquence.  But  John  had  other  aims. 
Meletius  had  baptized  him,  and  ordained  him  reader;  he 
lived  for  some  time  with  his  bishop,  and  afterwards  with 

1  "Two  Natures"  was  the  technical  phrase  of  Diodore;  "A 
single  Nature,"  that  of  ApoUinaris  {/.da  <pvais  rod  QeoO  Adyov  creaapKw/j.^vr]), 
who  left  it  as  a  legacy  to  Cyril  of  Alexandria  and  the  Monophysites. 


478  THE  EAST  UNDER  THEODOSIUS     [ch.  xvi. 

his  mother,  when  Meletius  had  been  sent  into  exile.  One 
fine  day  he  fled  to  the  desert,  and  went  to  live  among  the 
monks,  in  the  mountain  near  Antioch.  It  was  about  the 
same  time  that  Jerome  was  mortifying  himself,  not  far 
from  there,  in  the  deserts  of  Chalcis.  Their  impressions  of 
the  Eastern  anchorites  are  very  different.  Just  in 
proportion  as  Jerome  is  bitter,^  John  shows  himself 
enthusiastic.  His  beautiful  soul  —  young,  pure,  and 
trustful — could  see  nothing  but  holy  men  and  edifying 
actions.  But  the  hard  life  of  the  desert  was  not  suited 
for  him ;  at  the  end  of  six  years,  his  shattered  health 
brought  him  back  to  Antioch  in  380.  Meletius  had  just 
returned  there.  He  received  him  again  as  one  of  his 
clergy,  ordained  him  deacon,  and  in  386  Flavian  raised 
him  to  the  priesthood.  John  was  already  known  by 
several  writings.  On  the  Priesthood,  On  the  Monastic  Life, 
On  Providence ;  his  talent  for  speaking  was  revealed  in 
several  trials.  Flavian  gave  him  a  pulpit,  and  installed 
him  in  the  old  cathedral,  the  "  Palaia,"  as  it  was  called.  It 
was  from  thence  that,  for  twelve  years,  there  flowed  upon 
the  people  of  Antioch  a  stream  of  lucid  eloquence — 
exquisite  in  its  simplicity,  adapting  itself  marvellously  to 
the  needs  of  the  time,  to  the  taste  of  the  Antiochenes  and 
to  their  feelings  at  the  moment.  The  Bible,  explained 
without  allegorical  refinements,  was  the  usual  theme ; 
sometimes  the  orator  would  attack  the  Anomoeans,  who 
were  still  numerous  and  active ;  sometimes  the  Jews,  or 
rather  Christians  who  were  enticed  by  the  attraction  of 
Jewish  festivals.  The  High  Days  of  the  Christian  year, 
the  anniversaries  of  the  martyrs,  varied  from  time  to  time 
the  arrangement  of  his  sermons.  Sometimes,  too,  there 
occurred  unusual  events,  moments  of  strong  feeling  when 
the  anxiety  of  a  whole  people  seemed  to  pass  into  the 
soul  of  the  orator  and,  coming  there  into  contact  with  the 
deep  peace  of  the  saints,  was  transformed  into  speech  of 
thrilling  grandeur.  Thus  in  387,  on  the  occasion  of  some 
new  taxation,  the  people  rose  in  revolt,  threw  down  the 
statues  of  the  Emperor  Theodosius  and  the  Empress 
'  Supra,  pp.  380  et  seq. 


p.  605-6]         THE  STATUES  AT  ANTIOCH  479 

Flaccilla,  dragged  them  through  the  streets,  and  began  to 
acclaim  Maximus  the  Western  usurper.  It  was  easy  to 
foresee  the  kind  of  vengeance  which  would  ensue.  The 
people  had  not  yet  the  example  of  Thessalonica  before 
their  eyes ;  for  that  did  not  happen  till  the  following  year. 
But  they  already  knew  the  severity  of  Theodosius  and 
the  violent  outbursts  of  his  anger.  Whilst  the  venerable 
Flavian  set  out  in  the  depth  of  winter  on  the  way  to 
Constantinople,  Chrysostom  occupied  the  minds  of  the 
Christians  of  Antioch,  comforted  them,  and  took 
advantage  of  their  present  distress  to  make  them  listen 
to  wholesome  exhortations.  Later  on,  in  395,  the  news 
came  that  the  Huns  were  invading  Roman  Asia ;  they 
even  appeared  as  far  as  the  outskirts  of  Antioch.  It  was 
a  good  opportunity  for  preaching  repentance :  John  was 
not  unequal  to  it. 

But  the  time  was  drawing  near  when,  as  the  victim  of 
his  own  great  renown,  he  was  to  be  torn  from  the  devotion 
of  his  fellow-countrymen,  and  transported  to  play  his 
part  in  the  capital.  In  398,  John  succeeded  Nectarius  as 
Bishop  of  Constantinople. 

The  schism  which  divided  the  Catholics  of  Antioch 
was  not  yet  at  an  end.  Paulinus  still  maintained  his 
position  against  Flavian,  being  strong  in  the  support  of 
the  Westerns  and  the  Egyptians.  Some  time  after  the 
passing  visit  of  Paula  and  Jerome,^  he  felt  his  death 
approaching.  Fearing,  no  doubt,  that  his  group  of 
adherents  would  not  survive  him,  and  that  a  serious  appeal 
to  the  heart  and  the  good  sense  of  his  flock  would  unite 
them  once  more  to  the  Great  Church,  he  made  arrange- 
ments for  a  successor  to  himself  With  this  end  in  view, 
he  cast  his  eyes  upon  Evagrius,  the  former  friend  of 
Eusebius  of  Vercellae,-  and  consecrated  him  himself  before 
he  died.  What  is  more,  he  performed  this  ordination 
alone,  without   the   assistance  of  any  other  bishop.^     All 

^  Supra,  p.  384.  2  Supra,  pp.  321,  379. 

^  It  would  doubtless  have  been  difficult  for  him  to  find  other 
bishops  in  Syria,  where  everyone  was  in  union  with  Flavian.  To 
have   recourse  to   Epiphanius   or   the   Egyptians   would   have   been 


480  THE  EAST  UNDER  THEODOSIUS     [ch.  xvi. 

this  was  irregular  to  the  last  degree.  However,  the 
"  Eustathians "  were  so  deeply  rooted  in  Antioch,  and 
had  so  many  supporters  outside  it,  that  the  action  was 
not  condemned :  Evagrius  was  accepted  by  the  Little 
Church. 

Of  course,  the  Little  Church  gained  as  recruits  all  the 
malcontents  of  the  Great  Church.  Anyone  who  had 
cause  of  complaint  against  Flavian  and  his  clergy  at  once 
joined  Evagrius.  The  women  especially  flitted  continually 
from  one  communion  to  the  other.  Both  sides  believed 
themselves  to  be  Catholics ;  preference  for  one  or  the 
other  could  only  base  itself  on  very  elusive  shades  of 
difference.  But  this  did  not  prevent  constant  disputes, 
abuse,  and  anathemas.  Flavian's  clergy  were  much  dis- 
turbed about  the  matter.^     But  what  was  to  be  done  ? 

Evagrius  was  not  recognized  either  by  the  Bishop  of 
Alexandria  or  by  those  of  the  West.  The  latter,  even  if 
his  ordination  had  been  regular,  would  have  shown  too 
great  an  inconsistency  if,  after  having  protested  so  strongly 
against  the  idea  of  appointing  a  successor  to  Meletius, 
they  had  approved  of  filling  up  the  place  of  Paulinus. 
However,  they  did  not  come  over  to  the  side  of  Flavian, 
and  continued  to  regard  his  rights  as  problematical. 
Ambrose  led  this  campaign  with  his  usual  determination. 
In  382  he  had  wished  to  summon  Flavian  and  Paulinus 
to  appear :  now,  he  wished  Flavian  and  Evagrius  to  be 
sent  to  Italy,  and  lost  no  opportunity  of  appealing  to 
Theodosius  on  the  subject.  But  Flavian  had  no  intention 
of  allowing  his  rights,  so  evident  to  himself,  to  be  discussed 

difficult,  on  account  of  the  distance.  Besides,  they  would  not  have 
lent  themselves  to  an  ordination  which  uselessly  perpetuated  the 
schism.     They  did  not  support  Evagrius. 

1  Chrysost.  Ho7Ji.  xi.  in  Eph.  5,  6  {P.  G.,  vol.  Ixii.,  pp.  85-86)  ;  Bom. 
de  Anathejnate  {P.  G.  vol.  xlviii.  p.  945  etseq.).  Cavallera  {Le  Schisme 
dAntioche,  p.  16)  attributes  this  latter  homily  to  Flavian,  on  account 
of  a  passage  of  Ignatius  of  Antioch,  indicated  by  the  words  a7<6s  ns 
7r/)6  T/^wv  T^s  StaSox^s  tcDv  LtroarbXijiv  yevofxevos.  But  in  this  passage  the 
orator  simply  expresses  the  idea  that  Ignatius  had  lived  in  a  past 
generation,  near  the  days  of  the  apostles  ;  he  does  not  seem  to  me  to 
represent  Ignatius  as  his  predecessor  in  the  apostolic  see  of  Antioch. 


p.  608]  THE  SCHISM  AT  ANTIOCH  481 

by  others.  He  always  found  some  way  of  escaping 
summons.^  In  391,  Ambrose  thought  he  had  got  hold  of 
him.  He  had  secured  the  summoning  of  a  great  council 
at  Capua,  and  Theodosius,  who  had  returned  to  the  East, 
had  sent  for  the  Bishop  of  Antioch  to  come  to  him.  He 
gave  Flavian  a  lecture,  and  wished  to  send  him  off  to  Italy  ; 
but  Flavian  pleaded  the  winter  and  his  great  age :  to  cut 
the  story  short,  he  succeeded  in  obtaining  leave  to  return 
to  his  Eastern  diocese.  The  Council  of  Capua  took  place 
without  him.  For  the  sake  of  peace,  all  concurred  in 
agreeing  to  resume  relations  with  all  the  orthodox  bishops 
of  the  East ;  while,  as  to  the  affair  at  Antioch,  it  was 
decided  to  entrust  to  Theophilus  a  settlement  of  it  on  a 
definite  basis.  Theophilus  then  summoned  the  two 
parties  before  him ;  but  once  more  Flavian  managed  to 
avoid  putting  in  an  appearance,  and  entrenched  himself 
behind  the  imperial  edicts.^ 

It  was  not  such  a  simple  matter  as  Ambrose  imagined. 
Flavian  and  Evagrius  were  not  persons  to  be  placed  on 
the  same  level,  either  in  respect  of  importance  or  of 
legitimacy.  Theophilus  put  the  matter  on  a  proper  foot- 
ing, and  Pope  Siricius  agreed  to  certain  arrangements 
which  made  a  solution  very  much  less  difficult.  The 
Bishop  of  Alexandria  summoned  a  council  at  Csesarea  in 
Palestine.  He  was  to  have  presided  over  it,  but  at  the 
last  moment  he  discovered  that  the  exigencies  of  the  war 
he  was  waging  against  the  heathen  gods  retained  him  in 
Alexandria :  the  assembly,  consisting  of  Syrian  bishops, 
adopted  naturally  enough  the  peace-making  views  of 
the  Pope.  He  had  said,  when  sketching  the  course  to  be 
followed,  that  there  must  be  no  infringement  of  the  canon 
of  Niceea,  by  which  several  bishops  are  required  for  the 
consecration  of  one.  This  meant  the  condemnation 
of  Evagrius.  Siricius  had  also  said  that  there  ought  only 
to  be  a  single  bishop  in  Antioch,  legally  installed,  in 
conformity  with  the  canons  of  Nicaea.     In  this  description 

1  Theodoret,  H.  E.  v.  23,  can  only  give  us  here  general  outlines, 
for  his  account  is  inexact  and  confused. 
-  Ambrose,  Ep.  56. 

II  2  H 


482  THE  EAST  UNDER  THEODOSIUS     [ch.  xvi. 

the  council  recognized  Flavian,  and  signified  the  decision 
to  Theodosius.^ 

Shortly  afterwards,  in  394,  Flavian,  Nectarius,  and 
Theophilus  met  in  brotherly  intercourse  with  each  other 
at  a  council  in  Constantinople.^  It  is  natural  to  believe 
that  Rome  made  no  more  difficulties  than  Alexandria, 
and  that  friendly  relations  with  the  West  were  re-estab- 
lished without  delay.  A  deputation  from  the  clergy  of 
Antioch,  headed  by  Acacius,  Bishop  of  Berea,  repaired 
to  Rome.^  At  the  same  time  Theophilus  despatched 
there  a  venerable  priest  of  his  own  Church — Isidore,  The 
welcome  they  received  and  the  letters  which  they  brought 
put  an  end  to  this  protracted  strife.  But  the  Little  Church 
still  continued  to  exist.  It  is  true  that  Evagrius  died,  and 
Flavian  succeeded  in  preventing  a  successor  being 
appointed ;  but  the  flock  still  gathered  around  their  dis- 

^  This  Council  of  CcCsarea  has  only  lately  been  known,  by  the 
publication  of  a  letter  in  which  Severus  of  Antioch  mentions  it ;  he 
even  quotes  an  important  passage  from  a  report  addressed  by  this 
assembly  to  the  Emperors  Theodosius,  Arcadius,  and  Honorius.  We 
learn  from  this  document  that  the  council  had  taken  cognizance  of 
three  letters  ;  one,  from  the  "brethren"  (of  the  West?)  to  Theophilus  ; 
another,  from  the  Council  of  Capua  to  the  bishops  of  the  East ;  and  a 
third,  from  Siricius,  Bishop  of  Rome,  in  conformity  with  which  the 
council  gives  its  judgment  (E.  W.  Brooks,  The  Sixth  Book  of  the  Select 
Letters  of  Severus,  vol.  ii.  (English  translation),  part  i.,  1908,  p.  223; 
the  text  will  also  be  found,  in  French,  in  Cavallera,  Le  Schisme 
d'Antioche,  p.  286,  in  which,  for  the  first  time,  this  document  has  been 
made  use  of.  It  goes  without  saying  that  the  council  must  have 
informed,  not  only  the  emperor,  but  also  Pope  Siricius  and 
Theophilus  of  its  decision  ;  but  of  these  letters  we  have  no  account. 

2  Infra,  p.  494. 

^  Theodoret,  II.  E.  v.  23.  This  historian  does  not  connect  this 
reconciliation  between  Rome  and  Antioch  with  the  installation  of 
Chrysostom  at  Constantinople  ;  nor  does  Socrates  {H.  E.  v.  15).  It 
is  only  Sozomen  {H.  E.  viii.  3)  who  groups  the  two  events  together. 
It  is  a  mistake  to  confuse  the  two  journeys  of  Acacius  of  which 
Palladius  speaks  {Dial.  4  and  6).  Isidore  was  certainly  not  entrusted 
with  carrying  to  Rome  the  documents  relating  to  the  election  of 
Chrysostom,  whose  rival  he  had  been  ;  Theophilus  at  that  time  would 
not  have  wished  to  impose  upon  him  so  bitter  a  task.  It  would 
be  better,  perhaps,  in  order  to  fix  the  date  of  his  journey  to  Rome,  to 
keep,  though  with  a  slight  correction,  the  story  which  Socrates  relates 


r.  610-11]  EUPHRATESIA  483 

sentient  clergy.  We  must  admit  that  Flavian  did  not 
smooth  the  way  for  reconciliation.  He  refused  to  receive 
among  his  clergy  those  who  owed  their  ordination  to 
Paulinus  and  to  Evagrius.  Such  ordinations  were  in  his 
eyes  null  and  void.  His  uncompromising  attitude  was 
not  favourably  regarded  in  Rome  ;  Theophilus  again 
intervened,  and  wrote  letters  to  his  colleague  of  Antioch, 
begging  him  to  be  more  conciliatory.  He  quoted  various 
precedents,  notably  that  of  Ambrose  of  Milan,  who  had 
not  hesitated  to  receive  the  clergy  of  Auxentius.^  We 
have  now  reached  the  time  of  Pope  Anastasius  (400  or 
401);  Flavian  died  shortly  afterwards,  the  local  schism 
being  still  unhealed. 

The  Syria  of  the  Euphrates,  or  Euphratesian  province, 
had  known  in  the  reign  of  Constans  the  celebrated 
Eudoxius,  Bishop  of  Germanicia,  whose  intrigues  con- 
ducted him  in  turn  to  the  great  sees  of  Antioch  and 
Constantinople.  In  the  days  of  the  Emperor  Valens  it 
possessed  an  episcopal  celebrity  of  a  very  different  kind 
in  Eusebius,  Bishop  of  Samosata,-  the  friend  of  Meletius 
and  of  Basil,  and  as  closely  concerned  as  they  were  in 
the  movement  whereby  the  East  was  drawing  closer  to 
Nicene  orthodoxy.  This  attitude  of  Eusebius  caused 
him  to  be  exiled  to  Thrace  in  374.  He  was  not  a 
writer,  but  he  was  a  man  of  wise  counsel  and  much 
practical  common  sense.  Being  deeply  convinced  of  the 
importance  that  Churches  should  be  provided  with  good 
bishops,  he  took  a  great  interest  in  all  ordinations.     He 

(vi.  2),  according  to  which  Isidore  carried  to  Italy  two  letters  from  his 
bishop,  addressed,  one  to  Maximus,  and  the  other  to  Theodosius,  but 
one  only  of  these  was  to  be  delivered  to  whichever  of  the  two  the 
fortune  of  war  should  have  favoured.  This  supposes  that  Isidore 
came  to  Rome  in  388,  the  year  in  which  Palladius  saw  him  at 
Alexandria.  Socrates  perhaps  confused  the  war  against  Maximus 
with  that  against  Eugenius  :  such  errors  are  frequent  with  him.  In 
that  case  the  journey  of  Isidore  and  Acacius  must  have  taken  place  in 
394,  a  date  which  fits  in  well  with  those  of  the  Councils  of  Capua, 
Caesarea,  and  Constantinople. 

^  Brooks,  loc.  cit.,  p.  303  et  seq.  ;  Cavallera,  loc.  cii.,  p.  290. 

'^  Often  mentioned  in  the  letters  of  Basil  and  Gregory  of  Nazianzus  ; 
cf.  Theodoret,  H.  E.  iv.  12,  13  ;  v.  4. 


484  THE  EAST  UNDER  THEODOSIUS     [ch.  xvi. 

assisted  in  361  at  the  ordination  of  Meletius  at  Antioch  ; 
later  on,  at  that  of  Basil  of  Csesarea  ;  and  after  the  death 
of  Valens  he  himself  consecrated  a  bishop  at  Edessa^; 
it  was  on  one  of  these  occasions  that  he  perished  at 
Dolicha,  whither  he  had  come  to  ordain  the  new  Bishop 
Maris,  As  he  was  passing  along  the  street,  an  old 
woman  who  was  an  Arian  threw  a  tile  at  him,  which 
struck  him  on  the  head  and  wounded  him  mortally. 

Eulogius,  who  had  been  ordained  by  Eusebius  at 
Edessa,  was,  like  his  consecrator,  one  of  those  who 
returned  from  the  persecution.  He  had  been  banished 
from  Edessa  at  the  same  time  as  the  Bishop,  Barses,  who, 
however,  never  returned  from  far-off  Phile,  his  place  of 
exile.  The  Christians  of  that  generation  could  remember 
the  holy  deacon  Ephrem  (Aphreim)  of  Nisibis,  a  poet 
and  exegete  of  great  distinction.-  When  Nisibis  was 
given  up  to  the  Persians  in  363,  Ephrem  had  retired 
into  Roman  territory  and  settled  at  Edessa,  where  he 
continued  his  literary  work.  His  commentaries  on  the 
Bible,  which  enjoyed  a  great  reputation  in  those  days, 
were  soon  translated  into  Greek  and  later  on  into 
Armenian.  For  the  Gospels,  the  text  that  he  followed 
was  the  Diatessaron,  a  compilation  in  which  the  texts 
of  the  four  Evangelists  were  blended  into  a  single 
narrative.^  This  arrangement  was  very  ancient ;  it  dated 
back   to   the  famous  apologist   Tatian,  a  native  of  those 

^  Theodoret,  H.  E.  v.  4,  mentions  many  other  ordinations  which 
he  performed. 

2  The  history  of  St  Ephrem,  which  is  told  with  considerable  minute- 
ness in  certain  authors,  and  even  in  Tillemont,  rests  upon  various 
biographical  or  even  autobiographical  documents  of  a  highly  circum- 
stantial but  extremely  suspicious  character.  I  pass  them  over  and 
confine  myself  to  a  few  essential  and  well-authenticated  details. 
Cf.  Rubens  Duval,  La  litterature  syriaque^  Paris,  1899,  p.  332  et  seq. 
There  is  still  much  to  be  done  with  regard  to  this  author,  his  history, 
and  his  work.  The  latter  has  only  been  preserved  very  incompletely 
in  Syriac  ;  and  there  is  mixed  with  it  a  very  large  proportion  of 
apocryphal  matter.  Cf.  Jerome,  De  vtris,  115  ;  Palladius,  Hist.  Laus. 
40  (loi) ;  Sozomen,  B.  E.  iii.  16  ;  Theodoret,  H.E.  ii.  26  and  iv.  26. 

2  The  commentary  of  Ephrem  on  the  Diatessaron  is  only  extant  in 
Armenian. 


p.  613]  EPHREM  AND  EDESSA  485 

Syriac-speaking  countries.  The  Churches  of  Osrhoene  had 
early  adopted  it  for  liturgical  use,  Basil  knew  the 
"  Syrian "  scholar  and  held  him  in  great  esteem.^  He 
owes  his  celebrity  chiefly  to  his  poetry.  At  Nisibis  he 
had  sung  of  the  exploits  of  his  fellow-citizens  when 
besieged  by  the  Persians ;  at  Edessa,  he  set  himself 
especially  to  rival  the  heretics.  Bardesanes  and  his  son 
Harmonius  had  left  behind  them  a  substantial  legacy 
of  popular  songs,  which  perpetuated  their  teaching  and 
made  it  widely  known.  Ephrem  composed  other  songs 
in  a  metre  marked  by  lines  of  seven  syllables,  in  which 
he  assails  with  vigour  not  only  the  followers  of  Bardesanes, 
who  were  still  numerous,  but  also  Marcionites,  Manicheans, 
and  other  heretics,  and  inculcates  at  the  same  time 
Christian  virtues  and  the  true  faith  of  the  Church.  He 
died  in  373,  just  when  the  blast  of  persecution  was  making 
itself  felt,  which  drove  on  the  road  to  exile  both  his 
own  Bishop,  Barses,  and  so  many  other  prelates  of 
Osrhoene. 

When  the  storm  was  past,  the  Church  revived  once 
more.  While  the  monks  of  Harran  cherished  the  memory 
of  Abraham,  the  people  of  Edessa  were  devoted  to  that 
of  King  Abgar  and  to  the  cult  of  St  Thomas.  During 
the  period  of  more  than  a  hundred  years  that  it  had 
been  in  vogue,  the  legend  of  Abgar  had  entered  the 
domain  of  accepted  facts.  In  the  ancient  palace  of  the 
kings  of  Edessa  there  were  shown  the  sculptured  portraits 
of  Abgar  and  his  son  Manou ;  here  also  was  to  be 
seen  the  celebrated  spring  which  had  gushed  out  miracul- 
ously during  a  siege,  to  take  the  place  of  the  aqueducts 
which  had  been  cut  by  the  Persians ;  sacred  fish  swam 
there  then  as  they  do  now.  And,  above  all,  there  was 
preserved  a  notable  relic,  the  famous  letter  of  Jesus  to 
King  Abgar.  Pilgrims  of  distinction  were  allowed  to 
see  it  and  even  to  make  a  copy  of  it.  If  the  Persians 
drew  near  to  Edessa,  the  bishop  was  wont  to  mount  the 
ramparts  and  solemnly  to  read  out  the  sacred  words. 
Nothing  more  was  necessary :  the  enemy  retired  forth- 
'   Basil,  I/exaiii.  2  ;  Dc  Spiritu  Sancto,  29. 


486  THE  EAST  UNDER  THEODOSIUS     [cii.  xvi. 

with.  As  to  St  Thomas,  his  body  was  preserved  in  an 
enormous  and  magnificent  basilica.  Where  did  it  come 
from?  It  would  perhaps  have  been  indiscreet  to  ask; 
in  after  years  it  was  admitted  that  it  had  been  brought 
from  India.^ 

Few  pilgrims  risked  themselves  in  this  far-off  country 
of  Mesopotamia,  situated  beyond  the  Hellenized  world, 
and  incessantly  ravaged  by  war.  On  the  other  hand 
the  roads  which  led  to  Palestine  were  more  and  more 
frequented.  It  was  like  a  fulfilment  of  the  ancient 
prophecies  :  all  the  nations  were  coming  to  Jerusalem. 

After  Macarius,  in  whose  episcopate  imperial  piety 
had  done  so  much  for  the  Holy  Places,  the  see  of  yElia  had 
been  occupied  by  Maximus,  an  old  confessor,  lame  and 
blind  in  one  eye  since  the  days  when  the  Emperor 
Daia  had  sent  him  to  the  mines,  .^lia  remembered 
that  it  had  once  been  at  Jerusalem.  How  could 
it  have  forgotten  the  fact,  above  all  now  when  the 
basilicas  of  Constantine  and  of  Helena,  besieged  by 
enormous  crowds  from  all  quarters,  were  reviving  and 
exalting  its  venerable  traditions?  The  Bishop  of 
Jerusalem  was  a  very  overpowering  suffragan  for  the 
Metropolitan  of  Caesarea ;  their  relations  to  each  other 
bear  evidence  of  the  fact :  it  is  true  that  these  relations 
had  been  settled  by  the  Council  of  Nicaea,  but  somewhat 
vaguely,  and  this  arrangement  had  not  diminished  the 
rivalry  between  the  two  sees.  In  the  dogmatic  disputes 
of  the  4th  century,  the  irrespective  bishops  were  rarely 
to  be  found  on  the  same  side.  Macarius  does  not  seem 
to  have  carried  away  from  the  Council  of  Nicaea  the  same 
feelings  of  disappointment  as  Eusebius  of  Caesarea.  In 
346  Maximus  gave  a  public  welcome  to  Athanasius  on 
his  return  from  the  West,  and  even  assembled  for  the 
occasion  a  council  of  sixteen  bishops  of  Palestine.  This 
demonstration  was  not  likely  to  please  Acacius,  the  new 
Metropolitan.  At  that  time  Cyril,  one  of  the  priests  of 
Maximus,  enjoyed  a  great  reputation  for  eloquence;  we 

^  On   the   pilgrimage  to  Edessa,  in  the  time  of  Theodosius,  see 
especially  the  Pcregrinatio,  c.  19. 


p.  615-6]  CYRIL  OF  JERUSALEM  487 

still  possess  a  whole  series  of  catechetical  lectures  of  his, 
which  were  delivered  during  one  Lent  for  the  instruction 
of  candidates  for  the  Easter  baptism.     Upon  the  Trinitarian 
question,   the   orator   shows   great    prudence :    he   avoids 
the  disputed  term  hovioousios,  but  his  doctrine  is  correct 
and   devoid    of  any  compromise   with   Arianism.     About 
the  year  350,^  Cyril  was  elected  successor   to  Maximus, 
and  then    installed  in   due  form   by  the  bishops   of  the 
province,  and,  needless  to   say,  with   the  consent  of  the 
Metropolitan."-      In    351     Cyril    wrote    to    the    Emperor 
Constantius   to  inform  him  of  a  celestial  phenomenon — 
a  cross  of  light  which  had  appeared   on  the  horizon  at 
Jerusalem.^     Shortly    afterwards    we    find    him    engaged 
in    conflict   with  Acacius  upon   questions   of  jurisdiction. 
The  quarrel  became  so  bitter  that  the  Metropolitan  cited 
his  suffragan  to  appear  before  his  council,  and  even  deposed 
him  for  contumacy.     This  was  in  the  year  357.     Acacius 
of  Caesarea  was  very  popular  at  Court.     Cyril   appealed 
from   this   decision,  but   could    not    succeed    in    retaining 
his  see,  which  was  immediately  bestowed  on  an  intruder. 
Retiring   to   Tarsus,   to   Bishop    Silvanus,  he  joined   the 
group   of  the   semi-orthodox — Basil   of   Ancyra,   George 
of    Laodicea,    and    other    opponents    of    pure    Arianism. 
Restored   to  his  see  in  359  by  the   Council  of  Seleucia, 
which  adjudicated  upon  his  appeal,  he  was  again  deposed 
a   few   months   later   by  the    Council  of  Constantinople, 
presided    over    by    Acacius.*      We    find    him    again    at 
Jerusalem  in  Julian's  reign  ^;  but  Valens  ordered  him  to 

1  This  is  the  date  given  in  St  Jerome's  Chrotiicle. 

-  Letter  of  the  council  of  382  (Theodoret,  H.  E.  v.  9,  p.  1033). 
Socrates,  H.  E.  ii.  38,  says  that  Maximus  had  been  deposed  by 
Acacius  and  Patrophilus  ;  this  is  a  mistake. 

3  The  conclusion  of  this  letter  is  certainly  not  authentic. 

•*  Amongst  the  ostensible  charges  brought  up  against  him  was 
the  following  :— During  a  time  of  famine,  Cyril  had  caused  several 
valuable  articles  from  the  treasury  of  his  church  to  be  sold  ;  amongst 
other  things  a  richly  embroidered  vestment,  the  gift  of  Constantine 
to  Bishop  Macarius.  Passing  from  purchaser  to  purchaser,  the 
precious  stuff  fell  into  the  hands  of  some  one  connected  with  a  theatre, 
who  displayed  it  on  the  stage  (Sozomen,  //.  E.  iv.  25). 

'"  Rufinus,  //.  E.  i.  yj. 


488  THE  EAST  UNDER  THEODOSIUS     [CH.  xvi. 

be  expelled  once  more,  and  it  was  not  until  378  that 
he  was  able  to  return.  He  took  part  in  the  Council 
of  Constantinople  in  381,  and  that  assembly  solemnly 
acknowledged  him  as  a  legitimate  bishop.  From  that  time 
forward  he  was  left  in  peace.  He  was  able  to  reassume 
the  government  of  his  own  Church  and  even  of  the 
neighbouring  Churches,  for  we  find  him  installing  in  the 
see  of  Csesarea  one  of  his  nephews,  whose  name  was 
Gelasius. 

The  state  of  religion  at  Jerusalem  suffered  from  these 
disturbances.  After  Cyril's  deposition,  for  more  than 
twenty  years  various  usurpers,  under  the  protection  of 
the  Arians,  had  succeeded  one  another  in  the  religious 
administration  of  the  Holy  City.  There  was  a  party  in 
opposition  to  them,  and  not  only  among  the  native 
population,  but  also  among  the  colonies  of  monks,  who 
were  becoming  daily  more  numerous.  This  body  of 
opponents  had  connections  with  Egypt,  with  the  West, 
and,  in  Syria,  with  the  party  which  was  led  by  Paulinus 
and  Apollinaris.  The  usurpers  were  naturally  regarded 
among  them  with  detestation ;  but  Cyril  himself  met  with 
but  little  sympathy  from  them.  He  was  not  sufficiently 
above  suspicion  for  them  ;  they  reproached  him  with  his 
relations  with  the  circle  of  Basil  of  Ancyra  and  of 
Silvanus,^  with  his  communications  with  Meletius  and 
Flavian.  Jerome,  from  whom  we  hear  all  the  scandal  of 
these  zealots,  does  not  hesitate  to  put  into  the  same  boat 
both  Cyril  and  his  rivals ;  according  to  him,  they  were  all 
Arians.^  Besides,  even  had  the  monks  been  united  in  a 
common  devotion  to  Cyril — which  was  far  from  being  the 
case — they  would  still  have  found  themselves  in  disagree- 
ment in  regard  to  Paulinus  and  to  Apollinaris,  especially 

^  There  were  also  the  Pneumatomachi,  whose  opposition  rested  on 
dififerent  grounds  (Palladius,  Hist.  Laus.  46  [118])  ;  but  they  do  not 
appear  to  have  been  very  numerous.  Melania  and  Rufinus  brought 
them  back  to  the  fold. 

^  Chron.  a.  Abr.  2364.  This  was  written  before  his  journey  to 
Palestine,  and  after  his  stay  at  Antioch  ;  it  was,  I  think,  from  those 
about  Paulinus  that  he  collected  the  information,  very  hostile  and 
very  inaccurate,  which  he  gives  us  with  regard  to  Cyril. 


p.  618]  THE  STATE  OF  PALESTINE  489 

to  the  latter,  whose  propaganda  was  then  agitating  the 
cells  on  the  Mount  of  Olives.  The  situation  became  so 
much  embittered  that  the  council  of  381  thought  it 
advisable  to  send  Gregory  of  Nyssa  on  a  special  mission 
to  Palestine  as  well  as  to  Arabia,  where  there  were  also 
troubles. 

Gregory  saw  at  close  quarters  this  famous  place  of 
pilgrimage,  of  which  there  remain  to  us  so  many  roseate 
accounts.  In  his  heart,  bishop  as  he  was,  enthusiasm  for 
Biblical  places  could  not  swallow  up  anxieties  of  a  higher 
order.  After  his  return  home,  he  showed  no  zeal  for  the 
Holy  Places.  Like  the  author  of  the  Imitation  in  later 
days,  he  deemed  that  those  who  run  from  place  to  place 
on  pilgrimages  are  not  on  the  road  to  sanctification. 
Nowhere  had  he  met  with  so  many  rascals  as  at 
Jerusalem :  theft,  adultery,  poisoning,  and  assassination 
were  common  occurrences  there.  Instead  of  taking 
journeys  to  risk  his  virtue  on  the  highways,  and  his  life 
among  such  cut-throats,  why  should  a  man  not  remain  in 
that  good  land  of  Cappadocia,  where  churches  were  not 
lacking,  and  where  rogues  were  fewer  than  honest  men  ? 

We  ask  ourselves,  what  would  have  happened  if  the 
Bishop  of  Nyssa,  instead  of  confiding  his  impressions  to 
select  correspondents,^  had  expressed  them  in  the  presence 
of  Melania,  Paula,  Silvania,  Etheria,  and  other  enthusi- 
astic pilgrims.  Fortunately,  they  heard  nothing  of  it,  and 
the  popularity  of  the  Holy  Places  suffered  in  no  wise  from 
his  criticisms.  The  more  visitors  came,  the  more  these 
sacred  sites  multiplied.  There  was  not  a  single  village  in 
Palestine  which  did  not  possess  some  Biblical  reminiscence. 
Of  course  a  great  many  of  these  were  authentic,  at  least 
in  the  sense  that  the  places  mentioned  in  the  Bible  could 
be  identified  with  towns,  villages,  rivers,  and  mountains, 
which  really  existed.  But  the  curiosity  of  the  pilgrims 
demanded  more  details ;  and,  as  the  supply  could  not  fail 
to  correspond  with  the  demand,  at  last  everything  was 
rediscovered — even  the  most  problematical  things,  such 
as  the  tomb  of  Job  and  the  palace  of  Melchisedech.  Once 
•  Greg.  Nyss.  Epp.  2,  3. 


490  THE  EAST  UNDER  THEODOSIUS    [ch.  xvi. 

created,  the  sanctuary  attracted  the  monks,  and  the  legend 
flourished. 

Amongst  the  Latin  colonies,  that  of  the  Mount  of 
Olives  and  that  of  Bethlehem  attracted  attention  and 
even  made  some  stir.  The  first  was  the  more  ancient. 
It  dated  back  to  the  last  years  of  the  Emperor  Valens. 
Melania  and  Rufinus  lived  there,  each  surrounded  by  a 
group  of  pious  persons  of  their  own  sex,  sanctifying 
themselves  by  fasting,  prayer,  and  the  study  of  the  Sacred 
Books.  Some  ten  years  later  Jerome  and  Paula  established 
themselves  at  Bethlehem,  under  the  same  conditions. 
Rufinus  and  Melania  had  at  first  made  a  stay  in  Egypt ; 
the  new-comers,  arriving  by  way  of  Antioch,  did  not 
neglect  to  make  also  a  pilgrimage  to  the  hermits  of  the 
Nile.  Jerome  profited  by  this  visit  to  converse  at  Alex- 
andria with  the  old  and  venerable  Didymus,^  who,  although 
blind  from  his  earliest  years,  had  none  the  less  found 
means  of  instructing  himself  so  profoundly  in  the 
branches  of  sacred  knowledge,  that  Athanasius  had 
confided  to  him  the  direction  of  the  Catechetical  School. 
Didymus  justified  his  bishop's  trust.  With  a  calm 
untroubled  by  noises  from  without,  acutely  as  they  made 
themselves  heard  around  him,  he  taught  the  doctrine  of 
the  Trinity  in  accordance  with  the  most  recent  and  most 
orthodox  formulas ;  at  the  same  time  upholding,  on  the 
whole,  the  system  of  Origen,  which  was  already  strongly 
assailed.  Didymus  was  a  great  ascetic :  St  Antony,  who 
had  visited  him  long  before  Jerome  did,  had  shown  him 
marks  of  his  esteem  ;  he  had  also  many  admirers 
amongst  the  solitaries  of  Nitria.  However,  even  in  his 
own  country,  he  did  not  please  everyone :  his  attach- 
ment to  Origen  caused  uneasiness. 

Certainly  it  had  caused  no  uneasiness  to  Rufinus,  who 
before  Jerome's  visit  had  attended  Didymus'  instructions. 
Nor  did  Jerome  again  feel  any  trouble  about  it.  The 
blind  sage  of  Alexandria  added  one  more  to  the  Greek 

*  On  Didymus  and  his  theology,  see  the  excellent  monograph  of 
J.  Leipoldt,  Didymus  der  Blinde  {Texte  und  Untersiich.  vol.  xxix., 
1905). 


p.  620-21]       THE  MONKS  OF  PALESTINE  491 

masters  of  whom  he  boasted  already/  Apollinaris  and 
Gregory  of  Nazianzus.  Origen  continued  to  be  in  his 
eyes  a  great  light  of  the  Church ;  without  compromising 
himself  with  Origen's  peculiar  teaching  any  more  than  he 
had  done  with  that  of  Apollinaris,  Jerome  professed  an 
admiration  for  him  which  knew  no  bounds,  and,  with  his 
customary  gentleness  of  temper,  treated  as  a  "  mad  dog  "  - 
anyone  who  allowed  himself  to  criticize  the  Alexandrian 
master. 

It  was  in  this  frame  of  mind  that  he  returned  from 
Egypt,  and  resumed  in  his  retreat  at  Bethlehem  his 
labours  upon  the  text  and  interpretation  of  the  Bible. 
Between  whiles  he  translated  Origen  and  Didymus. 
Rufinus,  so  far  as  regards  Origen,  held  the  same  view  as 
his  friend.  They  agreed  also  on  the  question  of  Apollinaris, 
whom  they  both  condemned  alike  for  his  teaching  and  his 
propaganda,  and  they  even  agreed  about  the  business  at 
Antioch :  they  were  both  on  the  side  of  Paulinus,  without, 
however,  thinking  themselves  entitled  to  turn  the  cold 
shoulder  upon  Bishop  John,  the  successor  of  Cyril,  and 
like  him  in  communion  with  Flavian.  There  was  thus 
no  reason  for  disagreement  between  the  two  men,  except 
that  there  were  two  of  them,  at  the  head  of  two  colonies 
of  the  same  origin,  and  so  exposed  to  the  temptations  of 
rivalry.  Moreover,  close  to  Rufinus  lived  Melania,  a 
personality  at  once  dominating  and  unyielding ;  Rufinus 
himself,  with  all  his  piety  and  his  learning,  was  a  man 
who  showed  himself  from  time  to  time  lacking  in  tact  and 
moderation,  although  it  would  have  needed  a  large  share 
of  both  qualities  to  avoid  collision  with  the  extremely 
irritable  man  whom  circumstances  had  given  them  as  a 
neighbour. 

In  the  province  of  Arabia,  beyond  the  Jordan  and  the 
Dead  Sea,  the  body  of  bishops  had,  with  a  few  rare 
exceptions,  followed  the  various  evolutions  of  their 
Eastern   colleagues.      Since    363,   they    had    given   their 

'  De  viris,  109,  where  Jerome  lays  stress  upon  his  literary 
relations  with  Didymus. 

"  Passage  quoted,  Vol.  I.,  p.  252,  note  i 


492  THE  EAST  UNDER  THEODOSIUS     [cii.  xvi. 

adhesion,  as  Acacius  and  Meletius  had  done,  to  the  Creed 
of  Nicaea.  The  metropolitical  see  of  Bostra  was  occupied 
at  that  time  by  Titus,  a  distinguished  writer,  to  whom  we 
owe  a  treatise  against  the  Manicheans.^  Titus  and  his 
clergy  had  much  to  put  up  with  from  Julian  the  apostate. 
In  connection  with  some  disturbances  which  had  taken 
place  at  Bostra,  the  bishop  was  led  to  protest  to  the 
emperor  that  although  the  Christians  around  him  were  as 
numerous  as  the  pagans  were,  he  felt  confident  of  being 
able  to  keep  order  in  the  city.  Julian  imputed  to  him 
as  a  crime  what  he  described  as  a  piece  of  presumption 
which  reflected  upon  the  people  of  Bostra,  and  tried  to 
lead  them  to  rise  against  their  bishop.  It  was  certainly 
not  his  fault  that  they  did  not  treat  Titus  with  violence." 

At  the  time  when  Apollinaris  was  agitating  the  East, 
there  took  their  birth  in  Arabia  certain  striking  innova- 
tions, which  were  not,  perhaps,  of  great  local  importance, 
but  which  are  interesting  to  observe,  because  they  throw 
a  light  upon  a  certain  working  of  men's  minds.  For  the 
first  time  we  find  a  mention  of  a  cultiis  devoted  to  Mary, 
the  Mother  of  the  Saviour.  Naturally,  it  was  the  women 
who  inaugurated  it.  They  had  imported  it,  it  would  seem, 
from  Thrace  and  from  Scythia.  This  cult  consisted  in  an 
annual  festival.  The  people  assembled  around  a  kind 
of  throne,  mounted  on  wheels,  and  offered  to  the  Virgin 
Mother  cakes  specially  prepared,  which  were  called 
"  collyrides."  There  was  a  complete  liturgical  rite,  which 
women  alone  could  celebrate.  Epiphanius,  so  well 
informed  in  matters  of  this  kind,  deduced  from  it  the 
heresy  of  the  Collyridians,  and  carefully  refuted  it,  both 
in  a  special  letter  addressed  to  Arabia,  and  in  his  great 
treatise  against  all  heresies.  But  at  the  same  time  and 
in  the  same  documents  he  had  also  to  concern  himself 
with  another  manifestation,  perhaps  called  to  life  by  the 

^  Migne,  P.  G.,  vol.  xv^ii.,  p.  1069 ;  but  the  text  is  interpolated  and 
incomplete  ;  we  must  take  account  also  of  the  Syriac  version,  edited 
in  1859  by  Lagarde.  As  to  Titus,  see  Jerome,  De  viris,  102  ;  Ep. 
Ixx.  4;  Sozomen,  H.  E.  v.  15;  and  a  recent  monograph  of  J. 
Sickenberger  in  the  Texte  unci  Ufti.,  vol.  xxi.,  1901. 

-  Julian,  Ep.  52. 


p.  623]  THE  PREFECT  RUFINUS  493 

previous  one,  but  at  any  rate  of  an  opposite  tendency. 
This  is  what  he  calls  the  heresy  of  the  Antidicomarianites. 
These,  briefly,  were  persons  who  thought,  like  Helvidius 
and  Jovinian,  that  from  the  time  when  the  Gospel  mentions 
the  brethren  of  the  Lord,  and  speaks  of  Jesus  as  the  "  first- 
born," Mary  must  have  had  other  children  after  Him. 

A  more  serious  dispute  arose  with  regard  to  the 
successor  of  Titus.  A  certain  Bagadius,  who  had  been 
elected  and  ordained  Bishop  of  Bostra,  soon  found  himself 
confronted  by  a  very  strenuous  opposition,  which  was 
upheld  by  an  episcopal  tribunal,  composed  of  two 
bishops,  CyriP  and  Palladius.  These  two  prelates  deposed 
Bagadius ;  he  was  ejected,  and  in  his  place  another  bishop 
named  Agapius  was  consecrated.  But  Bagadius  did  not 
accept  his  deprivation:  he  presented  himself  in  381  at 
the  great  Council  of  Constantinople ;  Agapius  did  the 
same.  The  council,  seeing  no  way  to  a  decision  between 
them,  instructed  Gregory  of  Nyssa  to  visit  Bostra  and 
arrange  the  matter.  Gregory  did  not  succeed  in  this, 
and  the  quarrel  continued.  The  parties  concerned  carried 
the  matter  to  Rome,  whence  they  returned  to  the  East 
with  a  letter  from  Pope  Siricius,  directing  Theophilus  of 
Alexandria  to  effect  a  final  settlement  of  this  interminable 
dispute. 

During  the  last  years  of  Theodosius,  the  most 
prominent  personage  in  the  Eastern  Empire  was  the 
praetorian  prefect,  Rufinus,  a  man  who  was  at  once 
ambitious,  grasping,  and  cruel.  Theodosius,  however, 
trusted  him  entirely.  It  was  to  his  care  that  he  entrusted 
his  family  and  his  Eastern  possessions,  when  in  394  he 
was  obliged  to  set  out  for  Italy  in  order  to  repress  the 
usurpation  of  Eugenius.  The  ambitions  of  Rufinus  were 
unbounded.  He  was  supposed  to  aim  at  the  Imperial 
throne,  and  it  certainly  seems  that  he  had  chosen  Arcadius 
— the  eldest  of  Theodosius'  sons,  who  had  long  been 
associated  with  his  father  in  the  empire  —  to  be  the 
husband  of  his  own  daughter.  While  Theodosius  was 
waging  war  against  Arbogast  and  Nicomachus  Flavianus, 
'  Perhaps  Cyril  of  Jerusalem. 


494  THE  EAST  UNDER  THEODOSIUS     [ch.  xvi. 

Rufinus  devoted  his  leisure  to  great  festivals  in  his  own 
honour.  As  he  made  a  parade  of  extreme  devotion, 
he  had  built  in  his  villa  at  Drus  (the  Oak),  three  miles 
from  Chalcedon,  a  magnificent  basilica  in  honour  of 
the  Apostles  Peter  and  Paul.  The  Pope  had  sent  him 
some  relics  of  them.  When  the  building  was  completed, 
he  determined  to  celebrate  its  dedication  by  a  great 
festival,  to  which  he  invited  the  chief  bishops  of  the  East, 
Nectarius  of  Constantinople,  Theophilus  of  Alexandria, 
Flavian  of  Antioch,  Amphilochius  of  Iconium,  Gregory  of 
Nyssa,  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia,  the  Metropolitans  of 
Caesarea  in  Cappadocia,  of  Ancyra,  of  Tarsus,  of  Caesarea 
in  Palestine,  and  many  others — thirty-seven  prelates  in 
all.  He  took  advantage  of  the  occasion  to  have  himself 
baptized,  and  wished  to  have  as  his  godfather  one  of  the 
most  venerated  of  the  solitaries  of  Nitria,  Ammonius,  the 
man  who  had  cut  off  one  of  his  ears  to  avoid  being  made 
a  bishop.^  This  holy  man  was  brought  from  Egypt,  and 
played  in  Rufinus'  festivities  the  part  which  had  been 
assigned  to  him.^ 

As  to  the  bishops,  they  took  advantage  of  their  meeting 
to  hold  a  council.  For  this  purpose,  they  transported 
themselves  to  Constantinople,  and  to  the  Baptistery  of  St 
Sophia.  Of  the  matters  with  which  they  dealt  we  know 
only  of  one — that  of  the  see  of  Bostra.  The  two  claimants 
were  present.  Theophilus,  in  fulfilment  of  the  commission 
given  him  by  Pope  Siricius,  laid  this  celebrated  dispute 
before  the  meeting.  The  conduct  of  those  bishops  who 
had  deposed  Bagadius  was  severely  censured ;  some  even 
spoke  of  passing  condemnation  on  their  memory.  But 
the  leaders  did  not  think  that  a  sentence  of  any  kind 
ought  to  be  pronounced  against  the  dead. 

How  exactly  the  affair  of  Bostra  was  settled,  we  are 
left  in  ignorance  by  the  few  lines  which  remain  to  us  of 
the   formal  record   of  the  proceedings.^     And,  moreover, 

1  Palladius,  Hist.  Laus.  ii  (12).     Cf.  p.  357,  note  r. 

'•^  He  died  shortly  afterwards,  and  was  buried  in  the  Church  of 
the  Oak,  where  his  tomb  remained  an  object  of  much  veneration. 

3  Until  recent  times  they  had  been  known  from  an  extract 
preserved  in  a  collection  of  Byzantine  canon  law  ;  this  extract  appears 


p.  626]  RUFINUS'  COUNCIL  495 

the  real  importance  of  this  meeting  of  bishops  is  found 
neither  in  the  ostentatious  ceremony  which  was  the 
pretext  for  it,  nor  in  the  decisions  w4iich  emanated  from 
it ;  but  in  the  testimony  it  gives  us  of  the  religious 
pacification  which  had  been  accomplished  in  the  East. 
There  is  agreement  everywhere  :  Flavian  sits  down  with 
Theophilus.  Theophilus  with  his  Eastern  brethren  defers 
to  the  wishes  of  Pope  Siricius.  The  schism  in  Arabia  is 
settled  ;  and  that  of  Antioch  reduced  to  the  proportions 
of  a  local  disagreement  of  which  we  catch  no  echo, 
henceforth,  in  the  relations  between  the  great  churches. 
It  was  a  festival  of  peace,  destined,  alas  !  to  be  followed  by 
a  very  cloudy  future.  Scarcely  one  year  was  to  elapse 
before  Rufinus,  the  promoter  of  these  solemnities,  was  to 
fall  the  victim  of  a  political  assassination.  In  403  his 
basilica  was  to  witness  the  deposition  of  Chrysostom,  and 
from  that  crime  were  to  issue  terrible  divisions.  Once 
more  those,  too,  were  destined  to  be  reconciled.  The  name 
of  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia  reminds  us  of  others,  the  echo 
of  which  was  to  ring  through  long  centuries.  Rufinus' 
Council  was  only  a  halt  on  the  mournful  road. 

in  the  collections  of  councils.  I  have  since  found  another  extract  from 
the  same  document  in  a  treatise  (still  unedited)  of  the  Roman  deacon 
Pelagius,  against  the  condemnation  of  the  Three  Chapters.  This 
extract  has  been  published  in  the  Annales  de  philosophie  chretienne, 
1885,  p.  281.  It  is  in  this  that  there  is  a  reference  to  Pope  Siricius  ; 
the  other  extract  does  not  mention  him. 


CHAPTER  XVII 

CHRISTIANITY,   THE   STATE    RELIGION 

Paganism  after  Julian.  Attitude  of  Valentinian  and  of  Valens. 
Gratian.  The  Altar  of  Victory,  Pagan  reaction  in  Rome 
under  Eugenius.  Theodosius  :  the  temples  closed.  The  temple 
of  Serapis  at  Alexandria.  Popular  disturbances.  Position  of 
the  Christian  sects  at  the  accession  of  Constantine.  Laws  of 
repression.  The  Novatians.  The  Catholic  Church  alone 
recognized.  Alliance  of  the  Church  with  the  State.  Liberty, 
right  of  property,  privileges.  Intervention  of  the  State  in 
religious  disputes,  in  the  nomination  or  the  deprivation  of 
bishops.     Episcopal  elections.     Civil  jurisdiction  of  the  bishops. 

I.   The  End  of  Paganism. 

The  dynasty  of  Constantine,  by  a  strange  irony  of  fate, 
came  to  an  end  with  a  prince  who  was  at  once  an  apostate 
and  a  pagan.  But  Julian's  reign  lasted  only  a  short  time ; 
his  restoration  of  Hellenism  had  taken  no  root;  and 
the  memory  which  remained  of  it  was  that  of  a  foolish 
attempt,  a  kind  of  religious  masquerade.  With  the  excep- 
tion of  a  few  hierophants,  genuine  pagans  do  not  seem  to 
have  lent  to  it  as  much  support  as  had  been  desired  by 
the  stage-manager.  Of  Julian  himself  they  preserved  a 
pious  remembrance,  but  without  any  very  deep  regrets. 

His  proceedings,  indeed,  could  only  have  the  effect  of 
throwing  ridicule,  and  even  odium,  upon  the  melancholy 
but  inevitable  decline  of  the  old  religion.  Henceforth,  its 
fate  was  sealed ;  the  current  was  too  strong  for  the  State 
itself,  with  all  its  power,  to  be  able  to  swim  against  it. 
Whether  the  emperor  were  favourable  or  not,  Christianity 
was  certain  of  success.     When  we  remember  that  it  did  not 


p.  628]        CHRISTIANITY  AND  PAGANISM  497 

cease  to  make  progress  in  Africa,  in  spite  of  the  stumbling- 
block  of  Donatism  ;  that  the  Arian  crisis,  and  bishops  like 
Eusebius  of  Nicomedia,  Stephen  of  Antioch,  Gregory  and 
George  of  Alexandria,  and  Eudoxius  of  Constantinople, 
did  not  prevent  its  conquest  of  the  East,  we  can  judge  how 
much  could  be  effected  against  it  by  official  hostility  or 
even  by  persecution. 

The  Christian  princes  who  succeeded  Julian — Jovian, 
Valentinian,  and  Valens — had  all  been  members  of  his 
military  staff.  Far  from  concealing  their  faith,  they  had 
professed  it  with  sufficient  energy  to  incur  the  displeasure 
of  their  sovereign,  and  even  temporary  disgrace.  When 
they  came  into  power,  they  simply  closed  the  pagan 
parenthesis  and  things  returned  to  the  course  they  had 
followed  during  the  time  of  Constantius,  although  with 
less  severity.  The  properties  restored  to  the  temples  by 
Julian  were  taken  from  them  again  for  the  benefit  of  the 
imperial  revenue,^  but  the  liberty  of  everyone  in  matters 
of  religion  was  loudly  proclaimed.  It  seems  that  at  first 
the  absolute  prohibition  of  sacrifices  was  allowed  to  drop. 
On  a  few  points  only  were  there  restrictive  measures  - : 
nocturnal  ceremonies  were  forbidden — with  some  excep- 
tions, however,  for  the  mysteries  of  Eleusis,  which  were 
celebrated  by  night,  received  a  dispensation.^  Augury 
without  being  proscribed  or  even  censured  was  closely 
watched,  as  also  were  the  other  religious  practices  con- 
nected with  the  divining  of  the  future — i.e.,  of  course,  the 
political  future.  Being  themselves  new  men,  the  heirs  of 
a  dynasty  which  had  been  deeply  rooted,  and  the  last 
representative  of  which  had  left  sympathizers,  Valentinian 
and  Valens  felt  strongly  the  necessity  of  making  their  own 
position  secure,  and  not  allowing  themselves  to  be  opposed 
by  rivals  of  the  stamp  of  Procopius.  Procopius  was  really 
a  kinsman  of  Julian's,  and  not  without  personal  sympathies 
with  paganism. 

^  Cod.  Theod.  x.  i,  8. 

2  Laws   alluded   to    in    Cod.    Theod.    ix.    i6,   9 ;    Cf.   Ammianus 
Marcellinus,  xxx.  9. 

■■^  Cod.    Theod.    ix.   16,  7,  a  law  of  364  ;  cf.  for  Eleusis,  Zosimus, 
H.  E.  iv.  3. 

II  2  I 


498  THE  RELIGION  OF  THE  STATE      [ch.  xvii. 

In  the  Empire  of  the  East,  the  Catholics,  driven  from 
their  churches  and  forced  to  meet  in  secluded  places, 
envied  the  pagans  the  publicity  of  their  worship.  Whether 
because  the  latter  abused  the  liberty  which  was  left  to 
them,^  or  for  other  reasons,  the  two  imperial  brothers  at 
length  showed  themselves  more  rigorous.  Sacrifices  were 
once  again  forbidden,  but  not  the  act  of  burning  incense 
upon  the  altars.^  Gratian  did  not  at  first  show  him- 
self more  severe.  However,  we  do  not  find  that  after  the 
death  of  his  father  in  375  he  took  the  title  of  Pontifex 
Maxiinus,  which  the  emperors  had  always  borne  since  the 
time  of  Augustus,  and  which,  thenceforward,  none  ever 
bore  again.  Zosimus^  tells  a  story  on  this  subject,  accord- 
ing to  which  the  ponttfices  of  Rome  offered  to  Gratian,  on 
his  accession,  a  sacerdotal  robe  in  his  capacity  of  head  of 
their  college ;  the  emperor  is  represented  as  refusing  it 
for  religious  reasons.  This  anecdote  is  more  than  doubt- 
ful ;  but  it  sufficiently  expresses  the  more  decided  attitude, 
from  a  personal  standpoint  at  first,  and  afterwards  as 
legislator,  which  Gratian  adopted  in  these  matters.  This 
young  prince,  who  had  been  brought  up  in  a  genuinely 
Christian  household,  had  had  as  his  instructor  the  famous 
Ausonius,  who  had  grounded  him  in  ancient  literature, 
and  assuredly  had  not  inculcated  in  him  any  prejudice 
against  Hellenism.  When  he  became  emperor,  he  had 
very  close  relations  with  St  Ambrose,  relations  which 
swayed  him  in  a  different  direction.  In  the  main,  however, 
it  was  by  his  own  conscience  and  by  circumstances  that 
he  was  chiefly  guided.  In  spite  of  all  professions  of 
toleration,  none  of  the  emperors  of  the  4th  century,  and 
Julian  no  more  than  the  rest,  had  ever  renounced  the 
dream  of  religious  unity.  Gratian  inherited  from  his 
father    the    conviction   that    paganism    was   destined    to 

1  The  Council  of  Valence  in  374  (c.  3)  is  still  concerned  with 
baptized  Christians  who  offer  sacrifices  or  suffer  themselves  to  undergo 
the  Taurobolium. 

-  Libanius,  Oratio  pro  teinplis. 

^  iv.  36.  The  story  is  told  in  such  a  way  as  to  explain  a  prophetic 
pun  upon  the  usurpation  of  Maximus. 

^  Cod.  Theod.  xvi.  10,  7,  9. 


p.  630-32]  THE  PAGAN  TEMPLES  499 

disappear,  and  that  the  State  must  assist  in  this  end, 
without,  of  course,  compromising  itself  by  violent  measures. 
He  continued  to  prohibit  sacrifices,  but  he  went  no 
further,  at  all  events  in  his  legislation.  Theodosius  also, 
although  the  position  was  riper  in  the  East,  stopped  there 
during  the  early  years  of  his  reign.  In  the  long  run,  the 
distinction  so  long  recognized  between  sacrifice  and  the 
other  acts  of  worship  was  finally  abandoned.  Every 
external  manifestation  of  the  pagan  religion  was  rigor- 
ously forbidden,  whether  in  the  temples,  or  on  the  high- 
ways and  on  private  property.^ 

Such  measures  involved,  or  practically  involved,  the 
closing  of  the  temples.  These  buildings  were  almost 
everywhere  the  chief  ornament  of  the  towns.  Several 
of  them,  imposing  from  their  vast  proportions  and  the 
majesty  of  their  architecture,  were  able  to  defend  them- 
selves in  addition  by  the  religious  awe  which  they  had 
inspired  for  so  many  centuries.  Many  of  them  contained 
works  of  art  of  the  greatest  value.  What  was  to  become 
of  them  ?  The  legislator  seems  to  have  been  anxious,  and 
that  from  the  time  of  Constantine  onwards,  to  protect  the 
interests  of  art,  and  to  preserve  their  monuments  to  the 
cities."  At  various  times,  laws  were  made  for  the  preserva- 
tion of  the  temples,  and  even  for  keeping  them  open, 
especially  when  they  could  be  adapted  for  public  use,  for 
instance,  for  the  meetings  of  the  councils  and  of  the  local 
magistrates.  Besides,  even  if  the  ancient  worship  was 
proscribed  in  itself  and  in  its  religious  practices,  no  one 
dreamed  for  a  moment  of  depriving  the  public  of  the 
games  and  other  festivities  to  which  it  had  given  rise.  In 
many  places  the  people  continued  to  assemble  around  the 
temples,  even  when  they  had  been  emptied  of  their  idols. 
The  religious  ritual  of  the  ancient  festival  was  suppressed, 
but  everything  else  was  preserved,  even  the  priesthood, 
which  still  had  a  reason  for  existence,  because  it  remained 

1  Laws  of  391  and  392  ;  Cod.  Theod.  xvi.  10,  10-12. 

"'  Cod.  Theod,  xvi.  10,  8,  in  382  (the  law  deals  with  a  temple 
situated  in  Osrhoene  ;  I  think  that  it  refers  to  the  town  of  Harian)  ; 
xvi.  10,  1 5- 1 8,  in  399. 


500         THE  RELIGION  OF  THE  STATE       [ch,  xvii. 

entrusted  with  the  duty  of  presiding  over  and  organizing 
the  pubhc  festivals.^  Of  course  in  many  places  somewhat 
more  was  retained  than  the  rigorists  would  have  admitted. 
In  secluded  places,  in  the  heart  of  the  country,  or  on 
large  private  estates,  the  temples,  the  sacred  groves,  and 
the  mysterious  springs  long  retained  their  prestige.  The 
last  victim  was  not  sacrificed  for  several  centuries  after  the 
prohibitions  of  Constantius  and  of  Theodosius. 

Moreover,  we  must  take  care,  in  matters  of  this  kind 
especially,  not  to  confuse  the  law  and  the  application  of  it. 
Even  in  the  large  towns  where  the  State  was  supreme,  it  was 
some  time  before  paganism,  though  theoretically  proscribed, 
ceased  actually  to  hold  an  important  position.  Constantius 
visited  Rome  in  357;  he  saw  the  temples  still  standing 
and  thronged  as  of  old.  He  knew  (for  how  could  he  have 
been  ignorant?)  that  in  spite  of  his  laws,  incense  was  still 
smoking  there,  and  also  the  blood  of  victims  ;  and  that 
the  expenses  of  the  religious  processions  were  still  borne 
by  the  State.  He  showed  no  approval,  for  he  was  of 
marble,  and  prided  himself  upon  never  betraying  his 
feelings  ;  but  neither  did  he  condemn.  Julian  had  not 
to  raise  up  again  the  altars  of  Rome  :  they  had  never 
been  thrown  down.  They  still  stood  under  the  Christian 
princes  who  came  after  him.  However,  the  continual 
progress  of  Christianity  deprived  the  old  religion  of  the 
favour  of  the  populace.  With  every  advance,  there  was 
a  further  shrinkage  of  the  circle  of  worshippers.  The 
aristocracy  who  clung  to  the  ancient  traditions  did  their 
best  to  maintain  them  ;  but  it  was  not  without  effort.  The 
sacred  colleges  and  the  priesthoods  were  recruited  with 
difficulty.  Certain  great  nobles  accumulated  sacred  offices, 
evidently  because  so  few  people  were  in  a  position  to  fill 

^  The  sacerdotes  or  coronati  are  still  mentioned,  for  a  considerable 
time,  in  the  imperial  laws.  These  offices  were  even,  as  at  the  time  of 
the  Council  of  Elvira,  sought  after  by  some  Christians  little  troubled 
by  scruples.  Legislation  was  necessary  before  they  could  be  excluded 
from  them  {Cod.  Theod.-xW.  i,  112).  Although  no  longer  involving 
the  obligation  to  sacrifice,  the  priesthoods  were  none  the  less  too 
closely  connected  with  paganism  for  it  not  to  be  unseemly  that  they 
should  be  seen  exercised  by  Christians. 


p.  633]  THE  PAGAN  ENDOWMENTS  501 

them.  In  such  circumstances,  we  can  imagine  that  the 
State  would  ask  itself  whether  it  ought  to  continue  to 
defray  the  expenses  of  a  cult  which  was,  comparatively 
speaking,  little  practised.  Here,  we  must  explain  a  little. 
Under  the  pagan  rigime,  when  the  State  asked  for 
sacrifices,  it  was  the  State  which  defrayed  the  expenses. 
This  under  Christian  emperors  no  longer  happened : 
Gratian  found  nothing  to  alter  in  this  respect.  But  the 
temples  were  provided  with  endowments  consisting  both 
of  personal  and  real  estate,  which  served  to  pay  the 
expenses  of  the  ordinary  maintenance  of  the  cult.  On  the 
other  hand,  the  officials,  when  their  services  were  not 
gratuitous  and  purely  honorary,  were  remunerated  by  the 
municipalities,  and  in  Rome  by  the  State,  which,  as  a 
general  rule,  also  had  charge  of  the  administration  of  the 
patrimony  of  the  temples,  and  had  at  last  come  to  consider 
itself  as  the  real  proprietor  of  it.  When  the  population 
passed  over  to  Christianity,  either  entirely  or  by  a  great 
majority,  the  municipalities  had  been  obliged  to  take  steps 
to  clear  up  this  position.  Although  we  have  no  informa- 
tion as  to  details,  we  can  well  imagine  that  they  did  not 
succeed  in  doing  this  everywhere  at  the  same  time,  or  in 
the  same  way,  and  that  many  abuses  and  encroachments 
were  the  result.  Gratian  made  a  general  rule,  but  the 
text  of  it  has  not  been  preserved  ^ ;  it  applied  not  only  to 
religious  establishments,  which,  having  been  deserted  by 
their  congregations,  had  really  no  longer  any  reason  for 
existing,  but  to  institutions  which  were  still  living,  and 
the  end  of  which  it  was  intended  in  this  way  to  hasten. 
It  was  then  that  the  great  Roman  colleges,  the  pontiffs, 
vestal-virgins,  quindecemvirs,  and  others  received  the 
fatal  blow. 

This  law  was  already  in  force  when,  in  382,  there 
occurred  the  incident  of  the  Altar  of  Victory.  Augustus, 
after  the  battle  of  Actium,  had  placed  in  the  meeting- 
place  of  the  Senate  a  statue  of  Victory,  which  had  formerly 

^  Often  alluded  to  in  the  discussion  between  St  Ambrose  and 
Symmachus  with  regard  to  the  Altar  of  Victory  ;  cf.  Cod.  Theod.  xvi. 
10,  20. 


502        THE  RELIGION  OF  THE  STATE       [ch.  xvii. 

been  brought  from  Tarentum  at  the  time  when  the 
Roman  Republic  had  made  itself  master  of  that  town. 
Beneath  it  an  altar  was  placed,  and  as  the  members  of  the 
Senate  entered  they  threw  on  it  a  few  grains  of  incense ; 
oaths  and  vows,  when  there  was  any  occasion  for  making 
them,  were  consecrated  by  the  presence  of  the  goddess. 
When  there  were  Christian  senators,  they  soon  found 
themselves  scandalized  by  this  idol.  The  Emperor 
Constantius  had  it  taken  away  ;  Julian  replaced  it ;  after 
him,  it  was  allowed  to  remain,  thanks  to  the  comparative 
toleration  which  ruled  during  the  reigns  of  Jovian  and 
Valentinian.  But  the  Christian  senators  increased  in 
numbers  every  day ;  their  scruples  found  their  way  to 
the  ears  of  Gratian,  who  ordered  the  removal  once  more 
of  the  goddess  who  gave  rise  to  the  dispute.  This  decision 
was  the  occasion  for  a  famous  debate ;  the  pagan  senators 
protested  by  the  mouth  of  Symmachus,  one  of  their  most 
distinguished  members ;  they  claimed  to  be  the  majority, 
and  demanded  that,  in  the  Senate  at  least,  the  Roman 
religion  should  be  respected.  Gratian  refused  to  receive 
their  envoy  :  he  had  learnt,  from  a  protest  of  the  Christian 
senators  presented  to  him  by  Pope  Damasus,  that 
Symmachus  did  not  represent  the  real  opinions  of  the 
assembly.  But  Gratian  died  in  the  following  year  (383), 
and  Valentinian  II.  allowed  Symmachus  to  plead  his 
cause  before  the  Imperial  Council.  During  the  interval 
he  had  been  appointed  Prefect  of  Rome.  His  speech^ 
made  a  great  sensation.  Ambrose  then  intervened,  asked 
for  a  full  account  of  the  memorial,  and  discussed  it  step 
by  step.2  It  was  not  only  the  restoration  of  the  Altar  of 
Victory  that  was  demanded  by  the  old  Roman ;  he  protested 
also  against  the  laws  of  spoliation,  which  had  deprived  the 
temples  of  their  revenues  and  the  priests  of  their  stipends  ; 
the  vestal-virgins,  especially,  were  defended  by  him  with 
the  greatest  warmth.  Ambrose  had  an  answer  to  every- 
thing ;  but  we  must  confess  that,  after  the  lapse  of  so 
many  centuries,  we  receive  a  strange  impression  when 
comparing  his  arguments  with  those  of  Symmachus,  and 
*  Sy)nm.  rel.  3.  -  Ambrose,  Epp.  17,  18. 


r.  636]  SYMMACHUS  503 

thinking  of  the  lips  which  reproduce  the  same  arguments 
for  and  against  in  our  own  day  in  a  similar  conflict.^ 

The  demand  of  Symmachus  had  no  result :  things 
remained  as  they  were.  In  this  year  (384)  the  gods 
lost  one  of  their  most  faithful  servants,  in  the  person 
of  Vettius  Agorius  Praetextatus.  He  had  been  praetorian 
prefect  at  the  same  time  that  Symmachus  was  prefect 
of  Rome.'  Another  distinguished  pagan,  Nicomachus 
Flavianus,  had  also  been  praetorian  prefect  in  383. 
Such  a  state  of  things  serves  to  show  us  that  if  the  laws 
were  severe  towards  paganism,  the  government  itself  bore 
no  malice  to  its  defenders.  In  387  Maximus  invaded 
Italy,  and  compelled  Valentinian  II.  to  take  refuge  with 
Theodosius.  His  authority  was  recognized  in  Rome  for 
several  months,  and  Symmachus,  who  was  by  no  means 
a  novice  in  the  art  of  panegyric,  pronounced  yet  another 
in  honour  of  the  new  prince.  It  cost  him  dear,  for 
Theodosius  lost  no  time  in  reinstating  his  young  colleague. 
Maximus,  after  being  defeated  in  several  battles,  was 
given  up  to  the  Emperor  of  the  East  and  finally  put 
to  death,  and  those  who  had  espoused  his  cause  found 
themselves  in  a  very  difficult  position.  Symmachus  took 
refuge  in  a  church.^  He  was  pardoned ;  he  suffered 
neither  in  his  person,  nor  in  his  goods,  nor  in  his  dignities. 
Theodosius  and  Valentinian  came  to  Rome  in  389. 
Flavian  and  Symmachus  reappeared  at  their  sides. 
Flavian  became  once  more  praetorian  prefect ;  as  for 
Symmachus,  he  was  designated  for  the  consulship,  and 
actually  inaugurated  his  tenure  of  the  office  on  January  i, 
391.  The  government  evidently  wished  to  win  over  to 
its  side  by  personal  favours  all  that  still  remained  of 
the  old  pagan  aristocracy,  which  was  more  and  more 
thwarted  in  its  religious  views.  But  the  struggle  was 
against  convictions  tenaciously  held.  The  pagan  party 
refused   to   resign    itself  to   the   disestablishment   of  the 

^  With  regard  to  this  affair,  which  has  often  been  described  to 
readers,  see  especially  Boissier,  La  fin  du  Paganisme,  pp.  267-338. 

^  See  above,  p.  364. 

•''  It  was   a   Novatian  Church  placed  under  the  authority  of  the 
Novatian  Pope,  Leontius  (Socrates,  //.  E,  v.  14). 


504        THE  RELIGION  OF  THE  STATE       [ch.  xvii. 

Roman  worship,  or  to  the  removal  of  the  Altar  of 
Victory.  They  never  ceased  to  besiege  the  princes  with 
their  protests.  Theodosius  received  at  Milan  ^  a  deputa- 
tion from  the  Senate ;  when  he  had  set  out  for  the  East, 
Valentinian  II.,  who  had  betaken  himself  to  Gaul,  was 
attacked  there  by  another  embassy.^  All  this,  however, 
produced  no  effect. 

But  on  May  15,  392,  Valentinian  was  assassinated 
at  Vienne,  at  the  instigation  of  Count  Arbogast,  a  too 
powerful  general.  The  murderer  cast  the  purple  mantle 
upon  the  shoulders  of  an  official  of  the  imperial  chancery, 
Eugenius  by  name,  who  in  bygone  days  had  won  some 
renown  as  a  professor  of  literature.  He  was  a  Christian  ; 
Arbogast,  his  patron,  was  not.  When  Eugenius  saw,  as 
he  very  soon  did,  that  Theodosius  would  not  recognize  him, 
he  thought  it  to  his  advantage  to  rely  upon  the  pagan 
party,  the  party  of  opposition,  exasperated  by  so  many 
failures,  and  especially  by  the  recent  laws  which  had  just 
forbidden  absolutely  all  practice  of  the  old  form  of  worship. 
At  that  time  the  Praetorian  Prefect  of  Italy  was  Nicomachus 
Flavianus,  the  cousin  and  son-in-law  of  Symmachus,  and 
like  him  zealously  devoted  to  the  gods.  The  great  pagan 
nobles  had  every  scope  to  carry  out  what  they  desired 
to  effect.  The  restoration  of  the  grants-in-aid  to  the 
old  religion  met,  it  is  true,  with  some  obstacles.  Eugenius 
needed  much  persuasion ;  it  became  him  but  ill  as  a 
professing  Christian  to  take  such  a  responsibility.  At 
last  a  way  out  was  found ;  the  possessions  and  stipends 
were  restored,  not   directly  to   the   temples,  but   to   the 

^  Probably  in  389  before  his  journey  to  Rome.  The  author  of 
the  De  promissionibtis,  who  wrote  towards  the  middle  of  the  5th 
century,  relates  (iii.  38)  that  Symmachus,  in  a  panegyric  officially 
delivered  {praeconio  lauduni  iti  consistofio  recitato)^  having  asked 
Theodosius  to  restore  the  Altar  of  Victory,  the  emperor  drove  him 
from  his  presence  and  packed  him  off  at  a  moment's  notice  a  hundred 
miles  away  in  a  peasant's  cart.  This  is,  in  my  opinion,  a  legendary 
transformation  of  one  of  the  fruitless  applications  made  by 
Symmachus  and  the  Senate,  to  Gratian,  Valentinian  II.,  or  Theodosius. 

^  Upon  these  appeals  from  the  Senate,  see  Ambrose,  Ep.  57. 
The  Bishop  of  Milan  seems  to  have  feared  for  a  moment  that 
Theodosius  would  give  way. 


p.  638-9]  POLICY  OF  EUGENIUS  505 

pagan  senators.  As  to  the  Altar  of  Victory,  liberty  to 
sacrifice  and  to  celebrate  all  pagan  ceremonies,  the  wishes 
of  Symmachus  and  his  friends  were  granted  full  and 
complete  satisfaction.  Yet  Symmachus  appears  ^  to  have 
accepted  this  unexpected  change  with  a  certain  amount 
of  reserve.  It  was  Nicomachus  Flavianus  who  came 
to  the  front.  Up  to  that  time  although  strongly  attached 
to  the  worship  of  the  gods,  and  showing  little  affection 
for  Christians  whenever  his  official  duties  gave  him  an 
opportunity  of  being  obnoxious  to  them,"  he  had  not 
displayed  a  devotion  so  extreme  as  Praetextatus  did,  nor 
had  he  declared  himself  with  so  much  urgency  as 
Symmachus  had  done  in  favour  of  the  old  traditions. 
Now,  however,  we  find  him  exhibiting  the  very  utmost 
zeal.  The  possessions  of  the  temples  served  to  organize 
festivities  of  great  pomp  and  noise,  Cybele,  the  Mother 
of  the  Gods,  was  carried  in  procession ;  the  ceremonies 
of  Isis  were  once  more  performed  ;  sacrifices  were  offered 
with  great  magnificence  to  Jupiter  Latialis ;  the  temples 
of  Venus  and  of  Flora,  of  which  so  many  hard  things 
had  been  said,  were  once  more  opened  for  their  licentious 
rites ;  and,  finally,  a  complete  lustration  of  the  city, 
according  to  the  ancient  ritual  of  purification  occupied 
for  three  months  those  who  still  followed  the  old  religion, 
and  provoked  exceedingly,  as  we  can  well  imagine,  the 
adherents  of  the  new.  Amongst  the  latter  some,  discon- 
certed at  their  want  of  favour  with  the  new  administration 

'■  The  collectors  of  his  correspondence  have  eliminated  from  it 
the  letters  belonging  to  this  period. 

2  Aug,  £^.  87,  8  ;  c/.  the  law  of  ^77,  Cod.  Theod.  xvi.  6,  2  {Cod. 
Just.  i.  6,  l).  In  the  new  edition  of  the  Theodosian  Code  it  is 
a  mistake  to  dispute  that  the  law  was  addressed  to  Flavian,  the 
Vicarius  of  Africa  ;  the  subject  in  itself  excludes  the  reading  Flaviano 
vie,  Asiae.  It  is  besides  clear  that  this  law  was  not  dated  from 
Constantinople,  where  neither  Gratian,  nor  Valens,  nor  Valentinian  II. 
were  to  be  found  in  377.  St  Augustine  says  that  Flavian  was  the 
Donatists'  man  {partis  vestrae  homini).  If  he  has  not  made  a 
mistake,  and  I  scarcely  think  that  he  has,  this  means  that  Flavian 
favoured  them,  not  that  he  was  himself  a  Donatist.  Nicomachus 
Flavianus  had  translated  into  Latin  the  work  of  Philostratus  upon 
Apollonius  of  Tyana  (Sidonius  ApoUinaris,  Ep.  viii.  3). 


506         THE  RELIGION  OF  THE  STATE       [cii.  xvii. 

and  debarred  from  the  public  offices,  began  to  feel  with- 
in themselves  some  drawings  towards  apostasy.  What 
Antioch  had  seen  under  Julian,  Rome  now  passed 
through  under  the  efforts  of  its  aristocracy.^ 

Theodosius  interrupted  the  festivities.  He  set  out 
again,  as  in  388,  on  the  road  to  Italy.  Arbogast  and 
Flavian  marched  to  stop  him.  On  their  departure  from 
Milan,  they  had  promised  to  turn  Ambrose's  Cathedral 
into  a  stable.  They  did  not  return.  Flavian,  who  had 
been  entrusted  with  guarding  the  passage  of  the  Julian 
Alps,  allowed  it  to  be  forced,  and  killed  himself  in  despair. 
In  the  battle  which  ensued,  near  the  River  Frigidus,- 
Eugenius  was  defeated  and  taken  prisoner ;  Theodosius 
had  him  beheaded.  Arbogast,  like  Flavian,  committed 
suicide.  The  banners  of  the  conquered  bore  the  image 
of  Hercules  ;  once  more  Christ  remained  master  on  the 
field  of  battle. 

And  this  was  the  end.  The  laws  which  forbade  pagan 
worship  were  once  more  put  in  force.  There  was  no 
persecution  of  individuals,  even  of  those  who  had  been 
most  deeply  implicated  in  the  usurpation  and  in  the  pagan 
reaction  :  Symmachus  lived  for  many  years,  and  the  family 
of  Nicomachus  Flavianus,  without  showing  the  slightest  sign 
of  embracing  the  victorious  religion,  still  held  high  offices 
of  State.  But  the  pagan  form  of  worship  was  forbidden, 
and  the  temples  were  closed. 

We  must  not  imagine  that  they  were  handed  over  to 
the  Christians  to  be  transformed  into  churches.  In  many 
places,  and  most  particularly  in  Rome,  where  the  two 
religions  had  existed  side  by  side  during  the  whole  of  the 
^  For  a  detailed  account  of  these  events,  we  may  refer  to  the 
"Invective  against  Nicomachus  Flavianus," Z'zV//^^/«V^////j, discovered 
by  M.  L.  Delisle,  in  a  celebrated  MS.  of  Prudentius  (Paris,  8084)  and 
published  by  him  in  1867  in  tht  Bibl  de  P^cole  des  Charies.  Other 
editions  have  appeared  since,  notably  those  of  Haupt,  in  Hermes, 
vol.  iv.,  p.  354,  and  of  Riese,  in  the  Anthologia  Latina  (Coll. 
Teubner),  n.  4.  It  is  a  declamation  in  verse  against  the  pagan  reaction 
of  394,  written  at  Rome  immediately  after  Flavian's  death.  Among 
the  commentaries  which  have  been  made  upon  it,  see  especially  that 
of  De  Rossi,  Bull.  1868,  p.  49  et  seq. 

"  The  River  Wippach,  to  the  east  of  Goertz. 


p.  G41]  TEMPI.es  and  churches  507 

4th  century,  the  Christians  were  quite  sufficiently  provided 
with  buildings,  and  had  no  wish  to  claim  the  temples.  It 
is  not  until  the  7th  century  that  we  find  them  appropriat- 
ing one,  and  turning  it  into  a  church :  the  transformation 
of  the  Pantheon,  about  the  year  612,  is  the  earliest  fact  of 
this  kind  which  can  be  established.  Now,  this  took  place 
at  a  time  when  the  State  no  longer  knew  what  to  do  with 
the  ancient  monuments  of  Rome.  They  were  no  longer 
of  any  use  ;  the  public  treasury  had  been  drained  in  order 
to  repair  them ;  the  best  thing  to  do  to  preserve  them  or 
to  turn  them  to  account  was  to  give  them  to  the  Church. 
Like  all  the  fine  monuments  of  Rome,  the  temples  had 
suffered  much  both  from  Alaric's  Goths  and  from  the 
Vandals  of  Genseric,  who  had  despoiled  them  of  their 
ornaments  of  precious  metals  and  other  valuable  materials  ; 
but  they  remained  standing  so  long  as  they  were  able  to 
resist  the  encroachments  of  time  and  the  violence  of  storms. 
Besides,  the  transformation  of  the  temples  into  churches 
was  not  without  drawbacks.  The  enormous  temple  of 
Caelestis  at  Carthage,  after  being  closed  for  some  time, 
was  overgrown  with  brambles.  The  authorities  allowed 
Bishop  Aurelius  to  use  it  for  Christian  worship,  so  that 
on  one  Easter  Day  the  bishop's  throne  was  erected  on  the 
very  spot  where  the  ancient  idol  had  formerly  stood.  In 
the  crowd  which  thronged  round  the  primate  of  Carthage 
was  a  young  man  of  observant  mind,  who,  while  following 
the  offices,  looked  about  him.  An  inscription  in  fine 
letters  of  gilded  bronze  attracted  his  attention.  On  the 
facade  of  the  temple  ran  the  inscription :  AVRELIVS 
PONTIFEX  DEDICAVIT.  It  seemed  like  a  prophecy. 
However,  it  was  soon  discovered  that  the  second  Aurelius 
and  the  form  of  worship  over  which  he  presided  did  not 
succeed  in  obliterating  the  old  traditions.  Many  of  the 
neophytes,  scarcely  emancipated  from  their  paganism, 
combined  in  their  prayers  the  worship  of  the  Tyrian 
goddess  with  that  of  Christ.  This  sealed  the  fate  of  the 
old  temple ;  an  order  was  given  for  its  destruction.^ 

'  Pseudo-Prosper,  De  Promissio?til)US,  iii.  38  ;  Salvian,  De  gubern. 
Dei,  8. 


508        THE  RELIGION  OF  THE  STATE        [en.  xvii 

It  appears  that  in  many  places  the  closing  of  the 
temples  was  accomplished,  as  at  Rome,  without  disturb- 
ances. But  it  was  not  so  in  the  East,  and  especially  in 
Syria,  where  certain  important  districts  remained  unalter- 
ably attached  to  their  old  forms  of  worship.  At  Alex- 
andria, as  in  Rome,  it  had  been  necessary  to  tolerate  not 
only  the  opening  of  the  temples,  but  the  continuance  of 
the  sacrifices.  In  the  country  districts,  and  perhaps  also 
in  certain  towns,  every  effort  was  made  to  evade  the  law. 
On  the  customary  days,  the  people  assembled  in  front  of 
the  temple ;  without  offering  a  sacrifice  in  the  strict  sense, 
they  killed  the  animal  enjoined  by  the  ritual  and  ate  it 
together,  in  a  kind  of  feast,  the  religious  character  of 
which  was  manifested  by  hymns  in  honour  of  the  gods. 
In  this  way  they  professed  to  be  acting  strictly  within  the 
bounds  of  the  law.  But  the  law  had,  amongst  the  ranks 
of  the  Christian  population,  many  voluntary  defenders 
who  were  but  little  disposed  to  be  content  with  pleasing 
fictions,  and  whose  zeal  was  apt  to  pass  all  bounds.  The 
black  swarm  of  monks  swooped  down  upon  the  festival ; 
with  blows  of  sticks  and  fists  they  scattered  the  unbelievers, 
then  fell  upon  the  temple  and  sacked  it.  Such  things  were 
often  to  be  seen  in  the  neighbourhood  of  Antioch.  The 
pagans  complained  to  the  bishop,  and  scarcely  obtained  a 
hearing.  Libanius  took  their  cause  in  hand,  and  composed 
in  this  connexion,  at  the  beginning  of  384,  his  plea  for  the 
temples,^  addressed  to  the  Emperor  Theodosius.  The 
illustrious  rhetorician  was  much  too  late  in  the  field.  He 
really  imagined  that  the  authorities  would  confine  them- 
selves to  the  prohibition  of  the  sacrifices,  and  allow  the 
rest  to  continue.  At  the  conclusion  of  his  appeal,  mean- 
ing to  enunciate  an  absurd  hypothesis,  he  thus  addresses 
the  emperor :  "  You  might,  sire,  have  decreed  as  follows : 
That  none  of  my  subjects  shall  henceforth  believe  in  the 
gods  nor  show  them  honour  ;  that  none  shall  ask  ought  of 
them,  either  for  himself  or  for  his  children,  unless  in  silence 
and  in  secret ;  that  everyone  shall  accept  the  religion 
which  I  honour  (the  Christian  religion),  shall  join  in  its 
'  Ed.  Richard  Foerster,  Libanii  opera  (Teubner),  vol.  iii.,  p.  80. 


p.  643-5]  LIBANIUS  509 

worship,  pray  according  to  its  rites,  and  bend  his  head 
beneath  the  hand  of  those  who  preside  over  them,  and  that 
upon  pain  of  death." 

This  was,  however,  really  what  Theodosius  wished, 
with  the  exception  of  having  recourse,  I  do  not  say  to  the 
pain  of  death,  but  to  any  penalty  at  all.  Apart  from  these 
means,  the  use  of  which  it  strictly  denied  itself,  the 
extirpation  of  paganism  was  pursued  by  every  method  at 
the  disposal  of  the  government.  If  no  one  was  attacked 
in  his  fortune  or  even  in  his  occupation,  on  the  other  hand 
a  vigorous  assault  was  made  on  the  worship  itself  and  on 
its  temples.  When  closing  the  temples  proved  insufficient, 
there  was  no  hesitation  in  proceeding  to  their  destruction. 
The  law  forbade  this  in  general  terms,  but  recourse  was 
had  to  special  edicts.  In  the  same  year  that  Libanius 
wrote  his  appeal,  the  Praetorian  Prefect  of  the  Orient, 
Cynegius,  was  sent  to  Syria  and  Egypt,  with  a  special 
mission  to  close  effectually  all  the  temples  which  had 
either  not  been  closed  at  all,  or  only  partly  so.^  This 
meant,  for  Alexandria,  the  end  of  the  regime  of  toleration. 
Some  years  afterwards  a  conflict  of  the  most  violent 
character  broke  out  in  that  great  city  between  the  pagans 
and  the  Christians.  The  new  Bishop  Theophilus  (385) 
had  secured  from  the  emperor  the  gift  of  an  ancient 
building,  which  had  already  in  the  reign  of  Constantius 
been  handed  over  to  Arian  worship.  In  order  to  change 
it  into  a  church,  he  made  some  alterations  in  it,  and 
these  brought  to  light  various  objects  associated  with  the 
cult ;  there  had  been  there,  in  bygone  days,  a  temple  of 
Bacchus  or  of  Mithra ;  the  votive  offerings  associated  with 
this  were  rediscovered,  some  of  them  of  a  very  unseemly 
kind.  Theophilus,  to  spite  the  pagans,  caused  these 
things  to  be  paraded  all  through  the  town.  This 
exhibition  evoked  a  riot ;  and,  after  a  protracted  conflict 
in  the  streets,  the  pagans,  under  the  leadership  of  a 
philosopher,  Olympius,  took  refuge  in  the  Serapeum,  and 
fortified  themselves  there.  This  enormous  temple  was 
built  upon  an  artificial  mound ;  it  was  reached  by  means 
1  Zosimus,  //.  E.  iv.  37. 


510         THE  RELIGION  OF  THE  STATE       [en.  xvii. 

of  a  staircase  of  a  hundred  steps ;  upon  the  platform, 
besides  the  naos  itself  and  the  porticoes,  there  were  erected 
various  buildings  devoted  to  the  services  of  the  sanctuary. 
From  this  stronghold  the  rioters  made  sorties,  often 
returning  with  prisoners ;  these  they  compelled  to 
renounce  Christianity  ;  and  some  of  them  died  in  this  way, 
meeting  an  unexpected  martyrdom.  Being  powerless  to 
subdue  this  rebellion,  the  local  authorities  consulted 
together,  and  it  was  decided  to  write  to  the  emperor. 
Theodosius  replied.  He  pardoned  the  outbreak,  and 
even  the  tortures  inflicted  on  the  Christians  ^ ;  but  he 
ordered  the  abolition  of  the  worship  of  Serapis.  It  was 
only  the  idol  which  was  destroyed.  And  even  then  it 
was  not  easy  to  find  anyone  to  raise  his  hand  to  it.  The 
colossal  statue  of  the  god  occupied  the  centre  of  the 
temple;  upon  his  head  rested  the  famous  "bushel,"  the 
emblem  of  fertility.  Facing  it  was  a  window,  cleverly 
arranged  so  that  on  certain  days  it  directed  upon 
the  gilded  lips  of  the  god  the  first  rays  of  the  rising  sun. 
Other  marvels  besides  were  to  be  seen  in  this  temple, 
venerated  and  feared  above  all  others.  The  pagans 
declared  that  if  anyone  laid  hands  upon  Serapis,  the 
world  would  be  instantly  destroyed.  However,  a  soldier 
ventured  to  hurl  his  javelin  at  the  head  of  the  god  ;  and 
the  charm  being  thus  broken,  Serapis  was  hewn  in  pieces 
and  dragged  through  the  streets  of  Alexandria.  The 
Patriarch,  Theophilus,  continued  his  excavations  which 
once  more  put  him  in  possession  of  "  exhibits "  of  a 
scarcely  edifying  character ;  he  was  not  the  man  to  keep 
them  to  himself."-  The  emperor  had  given  orders  that  the 
idols  made  of  precious  metal  should  be  melted  down,  and 

'  The  leader  of  the  revolt,  Olympius,  retired  to  Italy  ;  two  others, 
two  men  of  letters,  Helladius  and  Ammonius,  who  were  pagan  priests, 
became  teachers  of  grammar  at  Constantinople.  The  historian 
Socrates  attended  their  lectures.  Helladius  in  later  years  used 
to  tell  of  his  own  free  will  how,  at  the  time  of  the  troubles  in 
Alexandria,  he  had  killed  with  his  own  hand  as  many  as  nine 
Christians. 

^  On  all  this,  see  Rufinus,  H.  E.  ii.  22-30  ;  cf.  Sozomen,  H.  E.  vii. 
15,  and  Socrates  H.  E.  v.  16. 


p.  646]  THE  FALL  OF  PAGANISM  511 

that  what  they  yielded  should  be  distributed  to  the  poor. 
Theophilus  took  care  to  reserve  one  of  these  images,  which 
was  specially  curious,  and  to  put  it  in  a  conspicuous  place, 
always  with  a  view  to  annoying  the  pagans.  The  other 
temples  of  Alexandria  shared  the  same  fate  as  the 
Serapeum.  In  Canopus  also  Serapis  possessed  a  famous 
sanctuary ;  he  was  dislodged  from  it ;  and  a  colony  of 
Pacomians  came  to  establish  in  this  place  the  "  Monastery 
of  Penitence." 

In  Syria,  as  in  Egypt,  paganism  defended  itself,  and 
even  more  successfully.  At  Petra,  at  Areopolis  in  the 
ancient  Idumaea,  at  Gaza  and  at  Raphia,  on  the  sea- 
board of  Palestine,  at  Heliopolis,  in  the  Lebanon,  the 
population  resisted  stoutly  the  decrees  for  the  closing 
of  the  temples.  These  were,  however,  successfully  carried 
out.  Even  at  Gaza,  Marnas,  the  celebrated  local  god, 
found  himself  imprisoned  in  his  own  sanctuary.^  In 
Northern  Syria,  the  Bishop  of  Apamea,  Marcellus, 
obtained  orders  to  demolish  the  temples.  He  succeeded, 
not  without  difficulty,  in  destroying  the  principal  temple 
of  his  episcopal  city :  the  old  building  defended  itself  by 
its  massive  size  and  the  strength  of  its  construction. 
When  it  was  levelled  to  the  ground,  the  bishop  attacked 
the  other  temples  within  his  jurisdiction.  One  day,  at 
a  place  called  Aulon,  where  an  armed  resistance  had  been 
organized,  he  appeared  accompanied  by  soldiers  and 
gladiators.  A  battle  ensued ;  the  pagans  observed  the 
bishop  who  was  praying  in  a  place  apart.  They  seized 
him  and  burned  him  alive.  Of  course,  his  flock  regarded 
him  as  a  martyr.  The  murderers  were  discovered  ;  but 
the  bishops  of  the  province  prevented  any  prosecution.- 

The  crisis  lasted  for  some  time  longer.  Shut  up  though 
he  was  in  his  temple,  Marnas  often  received  there  stealthy 
visits  from  his  devotees  in  Gaza.  Porphyry,  the  bishop, 
obtained  from  Arcadius,  though  not  without  difficulty,  an 
order  for  destruction.  In  the  early  years  of  the  5th 
century,  Chrysostom  let  loose  the  Syrian  monks  upon 
the  sanctuaries  of  the  Lebanon.  Harran,  in  spite  of  all 
1  Jerome,  Ep.  107.  -  Theodoret,  H.  E.  v.  21. 


512        THE  RELIGION  OF  THE  STATE       [cii.  xvii. 

efforts,  remained  pagan.  We  have  no  proof  that,  in  these 
countries  of  old  religions,  the  gods  of  Aram  did  not  retain 
until  the  Moslem  conquest,  and  even  later,  a  few  belated 
worshippers. 

It  is  impossible  for  me  to  trace  in  all  its  details  the 
final  conflict  between  the  two  religions.  Too  often,  as  at 
Apamea  and  Alexandria,  there  were  scenes  of  bloodshed. 
St  Augustine  speaks  of  sixty  Christians  massacred  at 
Suffecta  in  revenge  for  the  destruction  of  an  idol.^  In 
397,  three  clergy  who  were  sent  to  the  Val  di  Nona, 
above  Trent,  to  convert  the  mountaineers  there  to 
Christianity,  were  massacred  by  them.-  The  adventures 
of  St  Martin  in  his  struggle  against  the  paganism  of  the 
country  districts  are  known  of  all  men.  In  Gaul  and 
elsewhere,  many  legends  of  martyrdom,  which  we  cannot 
succeed  in  fitting  in  with  the  official  persecutions,  are 
founded  upon  facts  of  this  kind,  upon  sanguinary  disputes 
brought  about  by  the  ill-timed  zeal  of  certain  Christians 
and  by  the  persistent  attachment  of  the  people  to  the  old 
forms  of  religion.  The  only  victims  that  we  know  of  are, 
it  is  true,  Christians  ;  but  only  the  Christians  have  written 
the  story,  and  it  is  quite  natural  that  they  should  not 
have  taken  account  of  the  deaths  of  their  opponents. 

Whatever  may  be  the  proper  division,  or  even  the 
number  of  human  lives  which  were  sacrificed  at  that 
time,  paganism  was  in  the  end  stamped  out.  By  dint  of 
laws  and  of  edicts,  by  the  natural  progress  of  Christianity, 
or  by  the  violent  struggle  between  adherents  of  the  old 
religion  and  those  of  the  new,  the  latter  ended  by  gaining 
the  day  both  legally  and  in  actual  fact. 

2.   The  Proscriptioit  of  the  Sects. 

For  the  Imperial  government  the  conflict  between  the 
old  faith  and  the  new  represented  only  one  side  of  the 
religious  problem.     Within  Christianity  itself,  there  were 

1  Ep.  50. 

2  Letters  of  Bishop  Vigilius  of  Trent  to  Simplician  of  Milan  and 
to  St  John  Chrysostom  (Migne,  P.  Z.,  vol.  xiii.,  p.  549  ;  they  are  also 
contained  in  the  Acta  sinccra  of  Ruinart). 


p.  648-50]  MANICHEISM  513 

quite  sufficient  varieties,  divisions,  and  disputes,  to  try  the 
patience  of  the  rulers  and  to  put  their  tact  to  a  severe  test. 

With  Manicheism,  which  was  not  Christian  at  all 
except  in  certain  external  forms,  and  which  really 
represented  a  religion  quite  different  from  any  other, 
their  relations  were  very  simple,  and  had  already  become 
traditional.  It  was  Diocletian  who  had  proscribed  this 
strange  religion  ^ ;  and  that  at  a  time  when  he  was  not 
yet  persecuting  Christianity.  His  terrible  law  does  not 
seem  to  have  been  carried  out  to  the  letter  under  the 
Christian  emperors.-  Manicheism  is  often  condemned  in 
their  legislation,  and  more  severely  than  other  sects.  We 
hear  of  Manicheans  being  sent  to  prison  or  to  exile ;  but 
we  do  not  find  that  the  penalty  of  death  which  had  been 
ordered  by  Diocletian  was  ever  applied  to  them. 

As  to  the  Christian  sects,  the  law,  under  the  pagan 
emperors,  had  distinguished  between  them  and  the  Great 
Church.  The  edicts  of  persecution  or  of  toleration  were 
applied  indifferently  to  every  variety  of  Christians.  But 
after  Constantine  it  was  no  longer  so. 

We  have  seen  before  that  in  addition  to  the  right  of 
existence,  which  was  recognized  to  the  Christian  communi- 
ties by  the  edicts  of  Galerius,  Constantine,  and  Licinius, 
and  even  in  addition  to  measures  of  restitution  decreed 
by  these  last  two  emperors,  privileges,  exemptions,  and 
favours,  pecuniary  and  otherwise,  were  very  soon  bestowed 
upon  the  Churches,  first  in  the  West,  and  afterwards  in 
the  East,  as  soon  as  Constantine  became  master  there. 
This  prince,  who  was  very  well  informed  as  to  the  internal 
divisions  of  Christianity,  decided  from  the  outset  that  his 
favours  should  go  only  to  the  Great  Church,  which  had 
been  recognized  by  him  as  true  and  legitimate.  This 
preference  showed  itself  at  first  in  his  acts  :  it  was  finally 
expressed  in  legislation  :  we  find  it  ratified  in  a  law  of  326.-^ 

*  See  Vol.  I.,  p.  410. 

2  The  suinmum  supplicium  only  reappeared  once  in  the  Theodosian 
Code  (xvi.  5,  9),  in  connection  with  certain  classes  of  persons  who 
appear  to  correspond  to  the  Manichean  "  elect." 

'  Cod.  Theod.  xvi.  5,  i. 

II  2  K 


514        THE  RELIGION  OF  THE  STATE       [ch.  xvii. 

But,  apart  from  this  question  of  privileges,  heretics  had 
had  in  the  beginning,  like  all  Christians,  the  right  to  re- 
establish their  churches  and  to  resume  their  meetings.  The 
most  ancient  Christian  church  which  is  still  standing  is  a 
Marcionite  church,  situated,  it  is  true,  in  a  country  which 
was  subject  at  that  day  to  Licinius.^  In  Africa, 
Constantine  tried  to  deprive  the  Donatists  of  their 
churches  2;  but  that  was  a  case  of  a  sect  just  coming 
to  the  birth,  and  of  buildings  which  might  be  considered 
as  being  diverted  by  it  from  their  lawful  attachment,  and 
taken  away  from  their  true  owner,  the  Catholic  Church  of 
the  district.  This  distinction  is  clearly  revealed  in  a  law 
of  326,2  which,  while  it  authorizes  the  Novatians  to  possess 
churches  and  cemeteries,  makes  an  exception  for  the  real 
property  which  the  sect  might  have  usurped  from  the 
Great  Church  at  the  time  of  their  separation.  The 
authorization  here  granted  to  the  Novatians  purports  to 
relate  only  to  them,  as  representing  a  special  position, 
better  than  that  of  the  other  sects.*  This  agrees  entirely 
with  the  comparative  respect  which  the  Council  of  Nicaea 
shows  towards  these  dissenters,  or  rather  to  those  of  them 
who  were  resuming  connection  with  the  Catholic  Church. 

They  are  mentioned,  however,  with  the  other  sects, 
in  an  edict,  several  years  later  in  date,  the  text  of 
which  Eusebius^  has  preserved  to  us.  It  is  a  kind  of 
exhortation,  addressed  directly  by  the  emperor  to  the 
heretics— Novatians,  Valentinians,  Marcionites,  Paulinians, 
Montanists,  and  others— calling  upon  them  to  return  to 
the  Church.  There  is  a  reference  in  it  to  a  law,  despatched 
to  the  governors  of  provinces,  according  to  which  religious 

1  In  the  present  village  of  Deir-Ali,  to  the  south  of  Damascus 
(the  ancient  Iturasa).  We  may  still  read,  above  the  door,  the  inscrip- 
tion Si;fa7W7r;  'MapKiicviaruv  KWfxris  Ae^d^uu,  tov  Kvpiov  Kal  (TWTrjpos  'Irjcrov 
XpKTTOV,  irpovolq.  Jlai\ov  irpecr^vTipov,  rod  Xx    ^t"^'^-      This  year  63O  of  the 

Seleucid  era  corresponds  to  the  year  318  of  our  own  era. 

2  Stipra,  p.  93. 

3  Cod.  Theod.  xvi.  5,  2. 

*  "  Novatianos  non  adeo  comperimus  praedamnatos  ut  his  quae 
petiverunt  crederemus  minime  largienda." 
s   Vita  Const,  iii.  64,  65. 


p.  651-3]  THE  NOVATIANS  515 

assemblies  were  forbidden  to  the  dissenters,  even  in  private 
houses  ;  their  places  of  meeting  were  taken  from  them  to  be 
handed  over  to  the  official  Church ;  and  finally,  their  com- 
mon possessions  were  confiscated  by  the  State.  Eusebius 
assures  us  ^  that  these  severities,  reinforced  by  sentences  of 
banishment  directed  against  the  leaders,  had  the  effect  of 
bringing  back  to  the  Church  a  large  number  of  dissenters. 

Such  laws,  as  we  see  from  the  striking  example 
of  the  Donatists,  could  not  always  be  carried  out. 
In  fact,  the  Little  Churches  continued  to  exist.  The 
Novatians  had  one  at  Constantinople.  During  the  reign 
of  Constantius,  Bishop  Macedonius,  a  man  little  given  to 
toleration,  compelled  them  to  transfer  it  to  the  other  side 
of  the  Golden  Horn  (Galata).  Under  this  bishop  the 
supporters  of  his  predecessor  Paul  and  of  the  Jionioousios 
were  treated  as  dissenters,  and  even  worse  used  than  the 
Novatians.  They  followed  the  latter  to  the  suburbs, 
attended  their  churches  for  lack  of  others,  and  a  fusion 
very  nearly  took  place  between  the  two  bodies  under 
the  pressure  of  a  common  persecution.^  At  Cyzicus  also, 
the  Novatian  Church  was  destroyed  at  that  time  by  the 
efforts  of  Bishop  Eleusius.  In  Paphlagonia,  where  they 
were  very  numerous,  they  had  to  suffer  from  the  consum- 
ing zeal  of  the  Bishop  of  Constantinople.  Macedonius, 
availing  himself  of  his  influence  with  the  authorities, 
succeeded  in  bringing  about  the  despatch  to  this  district  of 
quite  a  formidable  military  expedition.  The  Novatians, 
excited  no  doubt  by  previous  annoyances,  had  assembled  at  a 
place  called  Mantineion.  The  four  mimeri,  who  were  march- 
ing against  them,  did  not  dismay  them.  Armed  with  axes 
and  scythes,  these  peasants  cut  to  pieces  the  imperial  troops.^ 

Undertakings  of  this  kind  on  the  part  of  the  official 

1   Vita  Const,  iii.  66. 

"^  The  details  collected  by  Socrates  {H.  E.  ii.  27,  38  ;  cf.  Sozomen, 
H.  E.  iv.  2,  3)  upon  the  ill-treatment  to  which  the  followers  of  Paul 
were  exposed  at  this  time,  refer  rather  to  private  acts  of  violence  than 
to  formal  acts  of  the  government. 

^  Julian  alludes  to  these  facts  in  his  letter  52,  in  which  he  speaks 
of    massacres    of    heretics    which    took     place    under    Constantius 

iv  Sa/iocrdrois  Kai  Ki'fu'a)  Koi  T[a(p\ayovt(f.  Kal  HiOvvlq.  Kal  Ta\aTi(ji. 


516  THE  RELIGION  OF  THE  STATE     [cii.  xvii. 

bishops  presuppose  that  they  had  the  law  on  their  side, 
that  the  edict  spoken  of  by  Eusebius  was  in  no  way 
imaginary,  and  that  the  Novatians  themselves  had  not 
long  enjoyed  the  exceptional  conditions  which  Constantine 
had  granted  them  at  first.  They  recovered  them  under 
the  successors  of  Constantius,  and  down  to  the  beginning 
of  the  5  th  century  they  appear  to  have  been  left  in  peace. 
In  Constantinople,  Rome,  Alexandria,  and  in  many  other 
places,  we  hear  of  Novatian  churches,  the  existence  of 
which  was  neither  disturbed  nor  concealed. 

The  other  dissenters  also  held  their  ground,  in  spite  of 
legislation  which  grew  less  and  less  favourable  to  them. 
Abrogated  for  a  moment  under  Julian,  the  laws  which 
relate  to  them  had  speedily  been  revived.  Officially  they 
were  forbidden  ^  to  hold  meetings  for  worship,  and  that 
under  pain  of  confiscation  of  the  building  in  which  the 
assembly  had  taken  place.  But  the  very  fact  that  this 
prohibition  had  to  be  repeated  over  and  over  again,  and 
that  new  laws  had  again  and  again  to  be  drawn  up 
against  the  sects,  proves  that  they  continued  to  exist. 
Not  to  speak  of  the  Donatists,  who  were  masters  in  their 
own  country  and  to  whom  no  one  dared  to  speak  of  the 
Code,  many  dissenting  communities  were  able  to  defend 
themselves,  almost  everywhere,  by  their  numbers  and 
their  influence.  When  they  could  not  frighten  the 
magistrates,  they  found  other  means  to  ensure  that  they 
should  leave  them  in  peace — the  venality  of  these  officials 
here  played  its  part — and,  except  for  a  few  anxious  times, 
they  managed  to  get  off  scatheless. 

Yet,  serious  and  numerous  as  might  be  these  infringe- 
ments of  it,  the  legislation  remained,  was  constantly 
renewed,  and  was  more  and  more  clearly  defined,  being 
influenced  invariably  by  the  principle  that  there  was  only 
one  way  of  being  a  Christian — that  which  was  recognized 

^  Prohibition  referred  to  in  a  law  of  Valens  and  Gratian  (375-378), 
Cod.  Theod.  xvi.  5,  4.  Apparently  suspended  for  a  short  time,  it  was 
re-established  by  a  law  of  August  3,  379  {^Cod.  Theod.  xvi.  5,  5). 

"  The  title  De  Haereticis,  in  the  Theodosian  Code  (xvi.  5),  contains 
no  less  than  sixty-six  laws,  and  that  is  not  all. 


p.  654]  REPRESSION  OF  THE  SECTS  517 

by  the  State  and  directed  by  the  official  Church.  That 
Church  alone  had  the  right  to  exist  and  to  perform  the 
worship — the  collective  worship,  the  worship  of  the  com- 
munity— which  all  Christians,  whatever  their  denomination, 
considered  as  essential  to  their  religion,  as  constituting 
for  them  a  duty.  As  to  individual  convictions,  so  long  as 
they  do  not  show  themselves  by  outward  actions,  and 
especially  by  participation  in  forbidden  meetings,  the 
State  respects  them  on  the  whole.  We  do  not  find  that  it 
ever  forced  heretics  to  recant.  Nevertheless,  especially 
when  it  was  a  case  of  sects  looked  upon  with  peculiar 
disfavour,  such  as  the  Manicheans  at  first,  and  afterwards 
the  Eunomians  and  some  others,  too,  at  different  times — 
the  mere  fact  of  belonging  to  them  produced  consequences 
more  or  less  serious  :  disqualification  for  public  offices  and 
for  military  service,  limitation  of  the  right  to  dispose  of 
their  possessions  by  will  or  by  gift,  or  to  acquire  them  by 
the  same  means,  denial  of  rights  of  residence,  and  banish- 
ment. 

We  must  also  take  notice  of  the  proscription  of  books. 
Those  of  Arius  were  declared  by  Constantine  to  be  similar 
to  the  treatise  of  Porphyry  against  the  Christians,  and  as 
in  the  case  of  that  work  it  was  forbidden,  under  pain  of 
death,  to  preserve  them.^  The  same  prohibition,  with 
the  same  penalty,  was  extended  to  the  books  of  the 
Eunomians.'^ 

3.   The  CJmrch  in  the  State. 

But  this  Christian  religion  to  which  all  the  ancient 
traditions  of  worship  were  sacrificed,  this  Catholic  Church 
in  which  alone  the  government  consented  to  recognize 
genuine  Christianity  —  what  were  its  exact  relations 
with  the  State?  The  local  Church  in  each  city,  the 
grouping  of  Churches  throughout  the  empire  as  a  whole, 
could  only  represent,  wlien  compared  with  the  State,  a 
private  society.  Such  had  been  the  position  at  the  time 
of  the  laws  of  persecution  ;  and  such  it  remained  under 

1  Letter  of  Constantino  Toi's  irofrjpovs,  Socrates,  //.  jE.  i.  9,  p.  31. 
"  Co  it.  Theod.  xvi.  5,  34. 


518  THE  RELIGION  OF  THE  STATE    [ch.  xvii. 

the  Christian  emperors.  In  allowing  it  to  live,  the 
emperors  of  311  recognized  implicitly  that  its  existence 
could  be  reconciled  with  the  working  of  the  State.  It 
was  a  kind  of  approbation,  from  an  external  and 
administrative  point  of  view,  of  the  fundamental  statutes 
of  the  Christian  community.  If  the  State  had  confined 
itself  in  its  dealings  with  the  Church  to  the  simple  tolera- 
tion of  a  little  regarded  power,  its  relations  with  it  would 
have  remained  very  simple,  analogous,  for  example,  to 
those  which  it  maintained  with  the  Jewish  communities. 
But  in  the  first  place,  the  Church,  local  or  universal,  was 
already  exceeding  in  importance,  and  exceeded  to  an 
ever-increasing  extent,  all  other  organized  associations 
that  the  empire  contained.  Even  if  the  emperor  had 
remained  a  pagan,  it  would  have  been  difficult  for  him 
not  to  give  special  attention  to  a  society  of  such  wide 
range ;  the  mere  exercise  of  his  autocracy  would  have 
led  him  to  concern  himself  in  its  internal  affairs.  The  con- 
version of  the  prince  strengthened  this  tendency.  Who 
had  a  greater  interest  than  he  had  in  knowing  where, 
among  so  many  shades  of  difference,  was  the  true 
Christian  tradition  ?  To  which  of  them,  in  case  of 
disputes,  was  it,  I  do  not  say  more  legitimate  but  more 
tempting,  to  address  himself?  Was  it  not  the  Donatists 
and  the  Arians  who  introduced  Constantine  into  the 
realm  of  canon  law  and  of  theology?  Even  apart  from 
public  order  and  the  just  solicitude  which  any  emperor 
must  have  for  it,  was  not  a  Christian  prince  led  quite 
naturally  to  see  to  it  that  peace  should  reign  amongst 
his  brethren  in  Jesus  Christ,  and  that  the  guidance  of 
them  should  be  entrusted  to  worthy  pastors  ? 

Here  are  many  motives  for  interference  in  religious 
matters !  But  this  was  not  all.  Once  a  Christian,  the 
emperor  wished  forthwith  to  convert  the  empire  also, 
and  not  only  to  convert  it,  but  to  make  the  new  religion 
what  no  one  had  ever  been  able  to  make  the  old  one, 
a  universal  and  official  institution,  a  State  religion. 

Such  a  design  naturally  presupposed  that  the  State 
would  make  an  effort  to  hasten  the  disappearance  of  the 


p.  656-8]      THE  STATE  AND  CHRISTIANITY        519 

old  pagan  form  of  worship,  and  that  it  would  employ — 
if  not  every  possible  means — at  least  a  great  deal  of  zeal 
to  hinder  divisions  of  opinion  which  were  capable  of 
dislocating  the  Church.  But  it  also  presupposed  that  the 
government  would  often  intervene  in  ecclesiastical  affairs, 
and  that  the  high  favour  which  elevated  the  Church  from 
being  a  proscribed  sect  to  the  position  of  a  kind  of 
State  institution,  would  be  recompensed  by  conspicuous 
demonstrations  of  loyalty. 

The  Church  resigned  itself  to  this.  We  nowhere  find 
that  it  raised  any  objections  on  the  ground  of  principle. 
It  was  considered  very  natural.  The  triumph  of  Christ, 
of  His  religion,  His  Church,  and  of  His  followers  had 
been  foretold  by  the  Prophets,  announced  in  the  Gospel, 
and  claimed  by  the  Christian  conscience.  In  the  days 
of  old.  Christians  had  cursed  the  Babylon  of  the  Seven 
Hills  ;  now  they  were  conquering  her  and  were  going 
to  convert  her.  What  triumph  could  be  more  desirable  ? 
Undoubtedly  there  were  evil  times  during  which  Babylon, 
baptized  though  she  was,  still  made  them  feel  her  heavy 
hand.  It  was  then  that  Donatus  said  :  "  What  has  the 
emperor  got  to  do  with  the  affairs  of  the  Church?" 
It  was  then  that  Athanasius  discovered  in  Costyllius  all 
kinds  of  resemblances  to  Antichrist.  But  when  things 
went  smoothly,  no  one  was  scandalized  to  see  the 
emperor's  intervention.  That  he  should  intervene  only 
in  the  good  sense,  that  was  all  that  was  asked  of  him. 

These  ideas  appear  to  us  simple-minded,  because  our 
education  in  matters  of  this  kind  has  become  singularly 
subtle.  But  in  the  time  of  Theodosius  no  one  thought 
otherwise,  not  even  those  who  had  reason  to  complain 
of  the  Imperial  interference.  We  may  take  it  for  granted 
that  if  Donatus  and  Eunomius  had  been  in  favour,  they 
would  not  have  hesitated  to  secure  for  their  dogmas  the 
stamp  of  official  approval,  and  to  procure  for  them  the 
support  of  the  police. 

To  the  changes  in  their  legal  position  brought  about 
in  311  and  in  313,  the  Christians  owed,  before  everything 
else,  the  liberty  of  their  associations,  now  recognized  for 


520  THE  RELIGION  OF  THE  STATE    [cii.  xvii. 

what  they  really  were,  and  released  from  the  shackles 
imposed  by  the  law  upon  associations  which  were  concerned 
with  morals.  Christians  had  the  right  of  possessing  in 
a  corporate  capacity,  not  only  a  common  fund  but  also 
the  real  property  which  provided  them  with  a  centre 
of  meeting,  i.e.^  churches  and  their  dependent  buildings, 
the  bishop's  house,  hospitals,  and  other  charitable 
institutions;  also  their  cemeteries,  and  even  landed 
property  at  a  distance.  The  ecclesiastical  patrimony 
might  be  augumented  by  gift  and  by  will.  The  State 
recognized  the  bishops,  the  elected  heads  of  the  com- 
munities, as  the  administrators  of  their  temporal 
possessions,  and  as  their  spiritual  governors. 

To  this  liberty  which  had  been  granted  from  time 
immemorial  to  the  Jewish  communities,  and  which  the 
Christian  churches  had  also  themselves  enjoyed  in  fact  long 
before  Constantine,  in  the  interval  between  persecutions, 
were  soon  added  several  minor  privileges,  such  as  exemp- 
tion from  municipal  office,^  from  forced  labour,  from  the 
land-tax  in  the  case  of  public  churches,-  and  from  that 
of  the  "  chrysargyrium "  (licence)  for  the  inferior  clergy 
who  were  engaged  in  some  small  trade.^ 

But  one  fact  of  special  importance  is  that  the  position 
recognized  to  the  Great  Church — to  the  Catholic  Church 
— was  not  conceded  to  the  dissenting  bodies.  Hence 
resulted  a  State  orthodoxy.  The  State  was  obliged  to 
know  which  among  the  parties  in  conflict  was  the  one 
that  represented  genuine  Christianity,  the  one  which 
it  ought  to  acknowledge  and  to  protect  as  such.  In 
theory,  it  would  seem,  the  State  had  no  advice  to  give ; 
it  was  for  the  Christian  communities  to  settle  their  own 

'  Supra,  p.  50.  The  exemption  dates  from  313  ;  see  Cod.  Theod. 
xvi.  2,  where  it  is  often  mentioned. 

'^  In  the  law  of  Constantius  {Cod.  Theod.  xi.  i,  i,  wrongly  dated 
315  ;  it  should  rather  be  360)  which  mentions  this  exemption,  we 
must  not  take  the  words  ecclesias  cathoUcas  as  meaning  orthodox 
churches  in  opposition  to  nonconformist  churches  ;  it  refers  to 
public  churches  for  the  use  of  the  whole  community,  as  opposed 
to  private  churches,  domestic  oratories,  monastic  chapels,  etc. 

'^  Cod.  Theod.  xiii.   i,  i,  11,  14  ;  xvi.  2,  8,  10,  36, 


V.  659-60]        ECCLESIASTICAL  AUTHORITY  521 

disputes.  But,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  apart  from  occasional 
appeals  to  his  arbitration,  care  for  public  order,  care  even 
for  the  welfare  of  the  Church  induced  the  sovereign  to 
intervene  in  these  disputes,  and  to  take  whatever  means 
he  judged  advisable  in  order  to  put  an  end  to  them. 
Hence  we  find  the  emperors  organizing  religious  inquiries, 
gathering  together  councils,  taking  a  very  close  interest 
in  their  labours,  drawing  up  the  programme  for  them, 
intervening  even  in  the  composition  of  formulas  and  in 
the  choice  of  bishops. 

When  the  points  in  controversy  did  not  go  beyond 
the  domain  of  the  local  Church,  it  was  possible  still  to 
settle  them  by  the  intervention  of  superior  ecclesiastical 
authorities,  to  whom,  in  case  of  need,  the  government 
lent  material  support.  But  if  the  episcopate  were  divided, 
what  means  could  be  found  of  producing  agreement,  and 
which  side  ought  to  be  taken  ?  If  there  had  been,  in  the 
Church  of  the  4th  century,  a  central  authority  recognized 
and  active,  it  would  have  offered  a  means  of  solution. 
But  it  was  not  so.  Antioch  and  Alexandria  are  at 
variance ;  the  Egyptian  episcopate  supports  Athanasius, 
the  Eastern  episcopate  opposes  him.  How  was  the 
matter  to  be  decided  ?  By  doing  as  Aurelian  did,  and 
putting  oneself  on  the  side  taken  by  the  Roman  Church  ? 
For  that,  it  would  have  been  necessary  that  there  should 
be  in  this  respect  a  tradition,  a  custom  ;  that  it  should  have 
been  usual  to  see  the  Roman  Church  intervening  in  these 
matters.  But  in  reality  it  was  a  very  long  time  since 
anything  had  been  heard  of  that  Church  in  the  East.  A 
century  before,  the  authoritative  ways  of  Pope  Stephen 
had  offended  many  people,  among  them  some  of  those 
most  held  in  honour.  The  deposition  of  Paul  of  Samosata 
was  notified  to  the  Church  of  Rome,  as  it  was  to  that 
of  Alexandria,  but  it  had  not  had  to  take  any  share  in 
it.  It  played  but  a  minor  part  at  the  Council  of  Nicaea. 
Athanasius,  when  deposed  by  the  Council  of  Tyre,  does 
not  seem  to  have  had  any  idea  that  an  appeal  to  Rome 
might  restore  his  fortunes.  It  was  his  adversaries  who, 
when    seeking   support    for   the    usurpers   of  Alexandria, 


522  THE  RELIGION  OF  THE  STATE     [ch.  xvii. 

made  the  first  approaches  to  Pope  Julius.  Further,  so 
soon  as  they  met  with  opposition  from  him,  we  find  them 
assuming  a  disdainful  attitude  towards  the  Pope,  and 
even  taking  upon  themselves  to  depose  him.  Even  in  the 
West,  we  have  seen  what  concern  the  Donatists  had  for 
the  Church  over  the  sea  in  general,  and  for  the  Roman 
Church  in  particular. 

There  was  not  there  a  guiding  power,  an  effective 
expression  of  Christian  unity.  The  Papacy,  such  as  the 
West  knew  it  later  on,  was  still  to  be  born.  In  the  place 
which  it  did  not  yet  occupy,  the  State  installed  itself  without 
hesitation.  The  Christian  religion  became  the  religion 
of  the  emperor,  not  only  in  the  sense  of  being  professed 
by  him,  but  in  the  sense  of  being  directed  by  him.  Such 
is  not  the  law,  such  is  not  the  theory;  but  such  is  the 
fact. 

The  emperor,  it  is  true,  did  not  himself  determine 
the  formularies  of  faith ;  that  was  the  business  of  the 
bishops.  If  he  feels  the  necessity  of  fixing  exactly,  on  some 
particular  point,  the  theological  language,  it  is  to  them 
that  he  addresses  himself  Whether  they  are  assembled  in 
councils,  more  or  less  oecumenical,  in  one  or  in  two  divi- 
sions ;  or  whether  they  meet  in  smaller  gatherings  on  indi- 
vidual summonses  despatched  at  will,  it  is  always  to  the 
emperor  that  the  meeting  owes  its  formation,  it  is  to  him  that 
it  looks  for  its  programme,for  its  general  direction,  and  above 
all  for  the  sanction  of  its  decisions.  If,  like  Theodosius,  the 
emperor  distrusts  formulas,  and  has  recourse  more  readily 
to  persons,  it  is  he  who  decides  with  whom  it  is  right  to 
hold  communion.  And  upon  what  grounds  does  his 
decision  rest?  Upon  his  own  personal  estimate  of  the 
situation.  Theodosius  was  a  Nicene,  like  all  the  Westerns  ; 
when  he  was  called  to  govern  the  East,  he  indicated  to  it 
as  standards  of  orthodoxy  the  Bishops  of  Rome  and  of 
Alexandria.  Later  on,  when  he  knew  his  episcopal  world 
better,  he  perceived  that  these  authorities  were  not  so 
decisive  as  was  necessary,  and  he  indicated  others. 

The  emperor  again  does  not  assume,  in  theory,  the 
right  of  deposing  a  bishop.     That  is  the  business  of  the 


p.  602]  THEORY  AND  PRACTICE  523 

Church  which  alone  is  in  a  position  to  know  whether 
such  an  one  of  its  representatives  has  or  has  not  violated 
its  internal  statutes.  In  proceedings  taken  against 
bishops  and  other  clergy,  the  State  does  not  interfere, 
provided  such  proceedings  relate  only  to  statutory 
obligations,  and  do  not  affect  the  common  law  of  the 
State.  Thus,  if  a  bishop  teaches  heresy,  or  a  clerk  breaks 
the  law  of  celibacy  (provided  it  was  not  a  case  of  adultery), 
it  is  for  the  Church,  and  not  the  State,  to  recall  him  to 
his  duty,  and  to  apply  to  him  its  own  penalties,  dismissal, 
(deposition)  and  exclusion  (excommunication).  Where 
the  State  intervenes,  and  at  the  request  of  the  Church, 
is  in  relation  to  the  consequences  which  may  be  produced 
in  regard  to  public  order  by  the  execution  of  the  ecclesi- 
astical sentence.  Then  the  State,  by  ordinary  police 
measures,  would  eject,  banish,  or  imprison  such  and  such 
a  bishop,  or  such  and  such  a  claimant  as  should  be  pointed 
out  to  it,  either  by  its  own  officials  or  simply  by  episcopal 
authority,  after  a  trial  in  due  form. 

Such  is  the  theory.  In  practice,  it  is  evident  that  the 
government  would  have  no  difficulty  in  finding  in  the 
divisions  amongst  the  episcopate,  and  the  weaknesses  of 
individual  members,  a  basis  of  operations  against  any  per- 
sons who  presumed  to  displease  it.  Moreover,  the  common 
law,  with  its  crimes  of  lese-majeste  and  rebellion,  provided 
it  in  certain  cases  with  other  means  of  action.  In  fact,  a 
bishop,  especially  a  bishop  of  important  position,  who 
wished  to  live  a  quiet  life,  had  to  be  careful  not  to  oppose 
the  official  dogmas  and,  generally  speaking,  the  manifesta- 
tions, even  when  they  affected  religion,  of  the  will  of  the 
government.  However,  we  must  not  go  too  far,  and 
assimilate  the  bishops  to  the  State  officials.  The  "  army 
of  the  Church  "  is  always  distinguished  from  the  "  army  of 
the  world,"  not  only  by  the  nature  and  dignity  of  its 
functions,  but  also  by  its  origin.  The  bishops  are,  and 
remain,  the  elected  of  their  Church  ;  they  invest  each  other, 
without  the  State  having  anything  to  do  in  the  matter. 
To  face  the  hierarchy  of  government  officials  who  all  owe 
their  existence,  either  directly  or  indirectly,  to  the  will  of 


524  THE  RELIGION  OF  THE  STATE    [cii.  xvii. 

the  emperor,  there  rises  the  ecclesiastical  hierarchy  which, 
for  its  part,  holds  its  powers  by  election.  And  this  election 
remains  generally  free.  We  are  not  forbidden  to  suppose 
that  in  certain  cases,  where  the  choice  of  persons  was  of 
further  importance  to  him — at  Antioch,  and  at  Constanti- 
nople, for  instance — the  suggestions  of  the  sovereign  may 
have  assisted  the  electors  in  their  decision.  But  at  Rome, 
at  Alexandria,  and  elsewhere,  so  far  as  our  knowledge 
goes,  the  choice  of  the  electors  was  respected.^  At  the 
most,  in  case  of  doubt,  as  in  a  case  of  ambiguity  in  dogma, 
the  government  only  intervened  to  ascertain  the  truth  of 
the  matter,  not  to  impose  a  candidate. 

There  was  in  this  no  small  advantage  for  the  Church. 
In  it  alone  was  the  right  of  election  exercised.  We  may 
even  say  that,  by  means  of  its  councils,  it  showed  some 
marks  of  a  government  in  accordance  with  opinion  and  of 
representative  institutions.  Outside  the  Church,  in  the 
civil  and  political  domain,  there  were  only  the  governors 
and  the  governed.  This  special  position  the  Church  held 
by  its  essential  condition — that  of  a  private  society, 
independent  of  the  State,  when  once  it  had  come  to  terms 
with  its  legislative  decisions.  The  State  having,  after 
trial,  admitted  its  existence,  had  no  longer  any  right  to 
interfere  in  its  internal  government,  and  it  was  compelled 
to  respect  the  element  of  liberalism  which  that  government 
contained. 

These  two  societies,  which  tended  more  and  more  to 
include  the  same  persons,  and  were  scarcely  distinguish- 
able any  longer  save  by  their  aims,  could  not  fail  to 
multiply  their  points  of  contact,  to  rely  upon  each  other, 
and  to  lend  each  other  support.  A  conflict  between  them 
produced  the  effect  of  something  absurd.  A  heretic 
prince,  or  a  rebellious  bishop,  remained  possibilities,  but 
they  were  abnormal. 

One  of  the  most  ancient  and  most  significant  testi- 
monies to  this  mutual  understanding  is  the  institution  of 

^  Of  course  there  were  certain  exceptions,  in  times  of  crisis,  like 
those  in  which  it  imposed  the  usurpers  Gregory,  George,  Fehx,  and 
Lucius. 


p.  r,M]  THE  BISHOFS  TRIBUNAL  52;" 

the  episcopal  tribunal  in  the  4th  century.  Here,  let  it  be 
said  at  once,  it  is  not  a  question  of  judgments  given  by 
the  bishops  and  their  priests  in  the  disputes  between 
Christians.  That  goes  back  to  the  very  beginning  of 
Christianity.  The  members  of  the  primitive  Christian 
communities,  like  those  of  the  Jewish  communities,  readily 
carried  their  proceedings  before  their  religious  leaders. 
They  continued  to  do  so  in  the  4th  century,  and  even 
afterwards.  The  decisions  thus  given  were  binding  upon 
the  conscience,  but  could  only  be  upheld  by  statutory 
means.  In  order  to  claim  the  weight  of  public  authority,  it 
was  necessary  that  the  judgment  should  have  been  given 
by  way  of  arbitration,  with  a  preliminary  agreement 
between  the  parties.  But  what  I  mean  to  call  attention  to 
now,  is  the  right  granted  to  litigants  by  the  Christian 
emperors  to  carry  their  civil  disputes,  and  to  cite  their 
opponents,  before  the  bishops,  and  then  to  demand  the 
execution  of  their  decision  without  any  previous  com- 
promise.^ Recourse  to  this  ecclesiastical  tribunal  was  not 
limited  to  causes  between  Christians ;  any  persons  might 
avail  themselves  of  it,  and  that  in  whatever  state  their 
suit  might  be,  even  if  it  had  been  thrashed  out  before  a 
secular  judge,  and  he  had  begun  to  deliver  his  judgment. 
It  was  not  a  tribunal  of  appeal ;  it  was  a  special  court, 
which  was  considered  able  to  inspire  more  confidence  than 
the  ordinary  court,  and  the  access  to  which  was  made  easy. 
The  bishop  thus  possessed  the  jurisdiction  of  an  arbitra- 
tor ;  fortified  by  the  decision  given  by  him,  one  could 
claim  that  it  should  be  officially  enforced.  In  fact,  the  State 
admitted  that  the  episcopal  procedure  was  simpler,  more 
honest,  and  less  costly  than  that  of  its  own  judges,  offered 
to  disputants  special  advantages,  and  it  had  no  hesitation 
in  securing  these  for  them.  It  is  a  testimony  which  is 
very  honourable  to  the  Church :  we  may  be  allowed  to 
call  attention  to  it  since  the  jurisdiction  has  given  rise  to 
so  many  disputes  and  scandals. 

Such  was  the  position  of  the  Church  in  relation  to  the 
State  at  the  close  of  the  4th  century.      What  a   change 
'   Cod.  Theod.  i.  27,  i  ;  Const.  Sirvt.  i. 


526  THE  RELIGION  OF  THE  STATE    [oh.  xvii. 

since  Diocletian  !  Not  only  was  it  persecuted  no  longer, 
but  it  was  protected,  it  was  imitated,  it  had  become  like 
a  public  institution.  Religious  unity — so  long  the  dream 
of  statesmen — had  become  through  its  means  a  reality. 
It  is  useless  now  to  speak  of  syncretism  :  all  religions 
were  now  deserted  in  favour  of  one  alone,  and  that,  the 
very  one  against  which  it  had  formerly  been  desired  to 
unite  them.  Absorbed  in  some  degree  by  the  Roman 
State,  the  Church  absorbed  it  in  its  turn,  permeated  it 
with  its  principles,  made  of  it  the  Christian  State. 

But  what  had  been  the  result  for  Christianity  of  this 
great  external  change?  How  far  were  the  tradition  of 
the  Gospel  and  the  inner  life  of  the  Church  affected  by 
the  accession  of  multitudes  and  the  favour  of  the  powers 
of  the  world  ?     It  is  this  that  we  have  now  to  estimate. 


INDEX 


Abgar,  King  of  Edessa,  485 
Ablavius,     Praetorian     Prefect    in 
Nicomedia,  assists  Athanasius, 

135 
murder  of,  154 
Abraham  of  Batna,  exile  of,  312 
Acacius,  the  Metropolitan  of  Pales- 
tine, at  the  Counc.  of  Seleucia, 
240-244 
description  of,  242 
the  Councs.  of  Con'''",  244,  245, 

482 
and  Athanasius,  282 
and  EunomiuSj  297 
troubles  in  Rome,  359 
Bp.  of  Beroea,  482 
and  Cyril  of  Jerusalem,  487 
Acesius,  Novatian,  Bp.  of  ConP'% 

459 
Acholius,  Bp.  of  Thessalonica,  and 
Gregory  of  Nazianzus,  346 
and  the  Goths,  453 
.(Edesius,   his   condemnation    and 

escape,  34 
Aelia  Capitolina  (Jerusalem),  col- 
ony of — description,  63 
sites  at,  65 

prerogatives  of  Bp.  of,  120,  486 
monks  at,  408 
disturbances  at,  486-488 
Aelia,  Church  of,  supposed  site  of 

the  Last  Supper,  62 
Aerius  and  Eustathius,  316 
Aetius,   a   Christian    sophist,    and 
Julian,  220,  257 
his  doctrine,  221,  242,  245 
banishment,  235 

deposed  at  Counc.  of  ConP'*,  245 
imprisonment,  246,  296 
release,   and  ordination   as  bp., 

297 
and  Eunomius,  297-300 
death,  299 

527 


Africa,   persecution    of   Christians 
in,  5,38 
dissensions  in,  53,  355 
the  Donatist  schism,  79,   190  et 

seq. 
the  Creed  of  Nicaea,  374 
the  Counc.  at  Aquileia,  376 
Agapius,  Bp.  of  Cassarea  in  Pales- 
tine, 32 
Agapius,  Bp.  of  Ephesus,  458 
Agelius,   Novatian,  Bp.   of  ConP'*, 

459 
Agonistics.    See  Circumcellions 
Alamanni,  invasion  of  the,  333 
Alexander,     Bp.    of    Con?''',     and 

Arius,  146 
Alexander,  Bp.  of  Csesarea  in  Cap- 

padocia,  62 
Alexander,  Bp.  of  Alexandria,  98 

and  Arianism,  102,  106 

disciplinary  canons,  119 

death,  132 
Alexander,  Vicarius  of  Africa,  79 
Alexandria,  martyrs  of,  37 

churches  of,  98,  202 

clergy  of,  99 

Arianism  at,  102-104,  156,  I57 

date  of  Easter,  in 

disturbances,  211,  310,  311 

paganism  in,  508 
Alfius  Cascilianus  and  Bp.  Felix,  90, 

Ambrose,  St — De  Virgintbus,  40  n. 
childhood,  369 
ordained  Bp.  of  Milan,  370 
and  the  Counc.  of  Aquileia,  373 

et  seq. 
the  West  in  days  of,  414  et  seq. 
and  Ydacius,  422 
and  asceticism,  424 
at  Treves,  426 
and  Felix  of  Treves,  428 
and  Priscillianism,  429 


528 


INDEX 


Ambrose,  St  {continued) — 

death,  430,  440,  441 

position  of,  435,  436 

and  Theodosius,  438-40 

and  Jovinian,  445 

schism  at  Antioch,  481 

and  Gratian,  498 

and  Symmachus,  502 
Ammianus  MarcelUnus,   historian, 
on  Julian,  256,  262  n. 

attack  on  the  Ursinians,  364 
Ammonius,  357  «.,  494 
Amoun,  an  ascetic,  391 
Amphilochius  of  Iconium  at  Counc. 
of  Aquileia,  350 

history  of,  462,  463 
Amphion  of  Epiphania,  114 
Anastasis,  Church  of  the,  338,  339, 

341. 
Anastasius,  Pope,  431 
AnatoHus,  Bp.  of  Laodicea,  39,  277 
Ancyra,  54,  301,  302 
Anemius,  Bp.  of  Sirmium,  39,  277 
Annianus,    Bp.    of   Antioch — exile 

of,  242 
Anomoeans,  doctrine  of,  228,  234 
Council  of  Con^*'",  245 
at  Antioch,  276 
under  Jovian,  282 
under  Julian,  297 
canons  of  Coni''*  against,  348 
Anthimus,  Bp.  of  Tyana,  and  Basil, 

314,  315,  320 
Antinoe,   convents    of  women    at, 

400 
Antioch  in  Syria,  martyrdoms  at, 

39 
new  churches  at,  66 
date  of  Easter,  1 1 1 
Church  of,  128  ei  seq.^  165,  218  et 

seg.,  318,  319 
councs.  at,  161,  162,  168,  247 
creeds  of,  166,  167,  171,  201,  224, 

289 
oppression  under  Gallus,  199 
schisms  at,  218  et  seq. 
Eudoxius  at,  231 
paganism  at,  251,  266-268 
parties  at,  276,  277,  337 
the  succession  at,  345 
Antoninus,  death  of,  35 
Antony,  St,  the  famous  hermit,  146, 
357,  386 
history  and  life  of,  388-90,  490 


Aones,  a  Syrian  monk,  409 
ApoUinaris,     Bp.    of    Laodicea  — 
ecclesiastical  position,  273 
and  Basil,  323 
school  at  Antioch,  326 
condemned  by  Pope   Damasus, 

334 
the  canons  of  Con'''*',  348 
and  St  Jerome,  379 
doctrine,  469  et  seq. 
Apollinarianism,  at  Nazianzus,  466 

description  of,  469  et  seq. 
Appeals  of  Sardica,  the  canon  of, 

178  et  seq. 
Apphianus,  a  fervent  Christian,  34 
Aquileia,  Councs.  of,  351,  352,  373- 

376 
Arabia,  persecutions  in,  40 
Christianity  in,  491,  492,  495 
a  new  cult,  492 
Arbogast,  Count,  and  the  assassina- 
tion of  Valentinian,  504 
and  Theodosius,  506 
Arianism  (see  also  Arius)  in  Alex- 
andria, 103  et  seq.,  282,  321 
and  Athanasius,  213,  282 
and  Julian,  221 
and  Hosius,  227,  228 
in  ConP'%  338 
councs.  against,  368 
intrigues    against    St    Ambrose, 

370,  436 
Counc.  of  Aquileia,  377 
revival  of,  454  et  seq. 
disputes,  457 
Arians,  Apology  against  the,  by  St 

Athanasius,  178,  200 
Ariafis,    History    of  the,    by    St 

Athanasius,  216 
Ariminum,  Western  Counc.  at,  236, 

238,  239,  361 
Arius  (see  also  Arianism),  priest 
of  Baucalis,  history  of,  99 
doctrine,  100  et  seq. 
deposition,  104 
settles  in  Csesarea,  104 
return  to  Alexandria,  106,  107 
his  Thalia,  107,  108 
and  Counc.  of  Nicasa,  114  etseq., 

227 
and  Constantine,  136  et  seq. 
death,  146 

Counc.  of  Dedication,  166,  167 
proscription  of  his  books,  517 


INDEX 


529 


Arkaph,   John,    Bp.   of    Memphis, 
Archbishop  of  Meletians,  134, 

.139,  143 
exile  of,  147 
Aries,  Counc.  of,  88  etseq.,  225,  355, 

356 
Armenia,  Christianity  in,  5,  26,  313, 

314,  325 
Armenius,  a  Priscillian,  execution 

of,  425 
Arnobius,  a  converted  pagan,   41, 
42 
De      errore     profanarum      re- 
ligionum,  42  n. 
Arsenius  of  Hypsele   and   Athan- 

asius,  138,  141,  142 
Asceticism,  386  ei  seq. 
in  Spain,  419 
reaction  after,  443 
Asclepas,  proceedings  against,  173, 

174,  175 
Asclepios,  Marcionite  bp.,  martyr- 

dom  of,  33 
Asia  Minor,  Christianity  in,  5,  20, 
26 
monasticism  in,  410  et  seq. 
different  sects  in,  459  et  seq. 
Asterius  of  Cappadocia,  108,  148 
banishment  of,  181 
at  Antioch,  277,  279 
Athanasius,  St,  Bp.  of  Alexandria, 
and  consubstantial,  121,  122 
and  Eustathius,  129 
election  as  bp.,  132 
character,  133 
struggle    with     Meletians,     134 

et  seq. 
and     Constantine's     tricennalia, 

139,  140 
his  defence  at  Counc.   of  Tyre, 

141  et seq. 
deposition  of,  143 
first  exile,  145 
return,  1 5  5  <?/  seq. 
protest  of,  161 
and  Marcellus,  164,  184 
and  Counc.  of  Sardica,  171  et  seq. 
and  Nicene  Creed,  176,  177,  293 
restoration  of,  185 
and  Constantius,  199,  205 
Counc.  of  Sirmium,  201  et  seq. 
proscription  of,  205 
disturbance  at   Alexandria,   and 
flight,  211 
II 


Athanasius,  St  {continued) — 
exile,  215-17 

exhortation  to  Eastern  bps.,  247 
return  from  exile,  263,  272 
exiled  by  Julian,  280 
return  to  Alexandria,  280 
and  Jovian,  280-82 
final  restoration  of,  291 
and  Basil,  319,  320 
and  the  hermits,  357 
and  Pope  Damasus,  368 
and  Restitutus,  375 
fidelity  of,  385 
and  St  Antony,  389,  390 
and  Pacomius,  397 
early  Christology,  471 
Works  quoted : — 

Apology  against  the   Avians, 

132  n.,  138,  174,  178,  200 
History  to  the  Monks,  132  n. 
Chronicle  of  the  Festal  letters^ 

132  n. 
Historia  acephala,  lyi  n. 
Apology  for  his  flight,  216 
History  of  the  Arians,  216 
Audius,     Bp.,     a     Mesopotamia!! 

ascetic,  451,  452 
Augustine,  St,  434,  441 
Aurelian  recovers  Gaul,  i,  2 

and  the  Roman  Church,  521 
Aurelius,  execution  of,  425 
Ausonius,  the  instructor  of  Gratian, 

498 
Auxentius,  Bp.  of  Milan,  and  the 
Counc.  of  Ariminum,  238,  285, 
286 
and  Basil,  218 
death,  368 
Auxentius,  the  Arian  Bp.  of  Doros- 

torum,  437 
Axido,  a  Circumcellion,  190 

Bagadius,  Bp.  of  Bostra,  493 

Bagai,  Donatists  at,  191 

Bardesanes,  485 

Barses,    Bp.    of  Edessa,   a   monk, 
312,485 

Basil,  Bp.  of  Amasia,  death,  55 

Basil,  Bp.  of  Ancyra,  175,  176 
at  Counc.  of  Sirmium,  200 
and  Aetius,  221,  231 
Counc.  of  Ancyra,  231  et  seq. 
and  Anomoeans,  234 
and  Constantius,  235  et  seq. 
2  L 


530 


INDEX 


Basil,  Bp.  of  Ancyra  {continued) — 
dated   creed    of    Sirmium,    236, 

237 

Counc.  of  Seleucia,  240  et  seq. 

exiled  to  lllyria,  245,  246 

and  Athanasius,  281 

and  Arianism,  302,  303 

and  Eunomians,  458 
Basil,  St,  Bp.  of  Ctesarea,  on  the 
Holy  Spirit,  294 

history  of,  303,  304,  308  et  seq. 

elected  bp.,  309 

and  Valens,  313 

and  the  Gregorys,  314,  315,  344, 
465 

and   Eustathius,    317,    322,    323, 
411 

and  Athanasius,  318  et  seq. 

new  situation,  328-30 

death,  334 

character,  334,  335 

and  Eunomians,  458 

and  Amphilochius,  462,  463 

and  Docetism,  471 
Basilides,  Bp.  of  Gangra,  312 
Bethlehem,  grotto  at,  65 
Beziers,  Counc.  of,  207 
Bgoul,  an  anchorite,  399 
Bishop's  tribunal,  the,  525 
Boissier,    La  Jin    du    Paganisme, 

48  n. 
Books,  the  Sacred,  destruction  and 

concealment  of,  10,  16 
Bordeaux  pilgrim,  the,  63 

Counc.  of,  423 
Bosphorus,  449 

Byzantium  and  Constantine,  66  et 
seq. 

churches  in,  68,  69 

C^CILIAN,  consecration  of,  83 
Caesarea  in  Cappadocia,  St  Basil  at, 

301,  302,  308,  313,  315 
Valens  arrives  at,  308 

Cappadocia  under  Diocletian,  301, 

302,  313  . 

and  St  Basil,  464 
Capua,  Counc.  of,  440,  481 
Carinus  and  Diocletian,  2 
Carthage,  schism  at,  81  et  seq. 
Carus,  Emp.,  i 

death,  2 
Cecropius,    Bp.,   killed    by  earth- 
quake, 235 


Cenobites.    See  Monks 
Cherson,  449 

Christology,  early,  470  et  seq. 
Chrysanthus,  son  of  Marcian,  459, 

460 
Chrysostom,     St     John,      Bp.     of 
ConP'*",    the    orator,    practices 
asceticism,  410 
and  Diodore,  476,  477 
his  early  life,  477,  478 
his  writings,  478 
comforts  Christians  at  Antioch, 

479 
and  paganism,  511 
Circumcellions,  the,  or  Agonistics, 

1 89  et  seq. 
Cirta,  Counc,  of,  79 
Constans,  Emp.,  rescript  on  sacri- 
fices, 61,  250 
history  and   religious   policy  of, 

154  et  seq.,  196 
sole  emp.  of  the  West,  165 
the  Dedication  Counc.  at  Antioch, 

168  et  seq. 
Counc.  of  Sardica,  175  et  seq. 
and  Photinus,  183,  184 
restoration   of  Athanasius,    185, 

186 
and  the  religious  parties  in  Africa, 

188  I? /•  seq. 
suppression  of  Donatism,  193 
assassination  of,  197 
Constantina,  daughter  of  Constan- 
tine, and  Magnentius,  197 
marriage,  198 
death,  199 
Constantine,    the    Christian   emp., 
early  history,  13-15 
his  ambition,  15 
defeats    Maxentius    at     Milvian 

Bridge,  15,  26,  27,  45,  48 
favours   the   Christians,    20,    21, 

S7  et  seq. 
his  edict,  28-31 
conversion  of,  46  et  seq.,  57 
and  Licinius,  49 
Christian  buildings  in  Rome,  51 
legislation,  52 
dissensions  in  Africa,  53 
sole  emp.,  57  et  seq. 
new  edicts  of  toleration,  57,  513 
policy,  58 
dream  of  unity,  59 
and  paganism,  60,  61 


INDEX 


531 


Constantine,  Christian  emp.  {cont.) 

pays    honour   to  holy  places   of 

Gospels  and  Old  Testament, 

6 1  et  seq. 

builds  churches  at  Antioch  and 

Nicomedia,  66 
founder  of  Coni''",  66-70 
and  Byzantium,  67-69 
baptized  by  Eusebius,  71 
death,  71,  152 
estimate  of  his  reign,  71 
Roman  Counc,  86-88 
Counc.  of  Aries,  88  et  seq. 
and  Donatism,  92  et  seq. 
and  dissentients,  123 
and  Eusebius   of  Ca^sarea,    125 

et  seq. 
and  Arius,  136  et  seq. 
his  tricennalia,  139 
banishes  Athanasius,  144 
his  heirs,  153,  154 
Constantine,  Life  of,  by  Eusebius, 

64  «.,  152 
Constantine  II.,  154,  155 

defeat  and  death,  165 
Constantinople,   founded   by  Con- 
stantine, 66  et  seq. 
the  Church  of,  338  et  seq.,  494 
councs.  of,  342  et  seq.,  482,  487, 

488 
the  canons  of,  348,  349 
Arian  disputes,  455,  456 
Constantius  I.,  the  Pale  (Chlorus), 
description,  3 
dislocation  of  Tetrarchy,  12,  20 
death,  13 
Constantius,    Julius,    son     of    the 
above,  153,  154 
murder  of,  154 
Constantius  II.,  son  of  Constantine, 

71, .154 
description  of,  155 
and   Athanasius,    155,    186,   199, 

202 
dedication  at  Antioch,  165 
and  Bp.  Stephen,  182 
usurpation   and  defeat  of  Mag- 

nentius,  197,  198 
marriage,  198 

exile  of  Liberius,  208,  209,  227 
instals     Eudoxius     at     Antioch, 

231 
declares  himself  a  liomoiotisian, 

232 


Constantius  II.  {continued) — 
and    Counc.  of  Ariminum,   238, 

239 

defeat  of  orthodoxy,  248 

death,  249 

and  Julian,  257,  258 

troubles  under,  358  et  seq. 

and  paganism  in  Rome,  500,  502 
Consubstantial,  disputes  as  to  use 

of  word,  120,  121,  357 
Creed  of  Nictea.     See  NlC^A 
CrispincT  Passio,  38  «. 
Crucifixion,  site  of  the,  64 
Culcianus,  Prefect,  and  Bp.  Phileas, 

37 
Cymatius,  Bp.  of  Paltus,  277 
Cynegius,  Praetorian  Prefect  of  the 

Orient,  509 
Cyprian,  St,  41,  44 
Cyprus,  Island  of,  466,  467 
Cyriacus,  353 
Cyril,  Bp.  of  Jerusalem,  39  ;/. 

Catecheses  of,  64  n. 

Counc.  of  Seleucia,  240,  241 

deposed,  246 

history  of,  486,  487 
Cyzicus,  counc.  at,  328 

Daia,  Maximin,  his  empire,  13,  15 

made  Augustus,  14,  15 

death  of  Galerius,  15 

defeat  and  death,  15,  28 

persecution  under,  20,  22  et  seq. 

panic  of,  26,  27 
Damasus,    Pope,    and    Basil,    318, 
321 

and  Paulinus,  326  et  seq. 

edict  of  Theodosius,  336 

election,  362,  363 

and  Ursinus,  363 

sects  at  Rome,  367,  368 

intrigues  against,  370 

letter  "to  the  Africans,"  375 

and  Jerome,  380,  381 

inscriptions  of,  383 

death,  383 

the  Counc.  of  Saragossa,  421 

and  Priscillian,  424 

condemns  Apollinarianism,  474 
Danubian  settlements,  449  et  seq. 
Daphne,  sanctuary  of,  at  Antioch, 

251,  267 
Dedication  Counc,  the,    168,    169, 
232,  240 


532 


INDEX 


Delmatius,  consul  and  censor,  153 

death  of,  154 
Delmatius,  Csesar,  son  of  the  above, 

death,  154 
DemophiluSj  Bp.,  183 

and  Pope  Liberius,  209,  225,  309 
disputes  at  Antioch,  337 
and  creed  of  Nicsea,  341 
Dianius,  Bp.  of  Csesarea,  deposed 
at  Counc.  of  Sardica,  303 
signs  the  confession  of  Ariminum, 
307 
Dictinius,  Bp.,  and  Priscillianism, 

429,  431,  435 

"The  Scale,"  433 
Didymus,  the  ascetic,  490 
Diocletian,     Emperor,     rise     and 
accession  of,  i  et  seq. 

the  Tetrarchy,  3 

Rome  under,  4 

and  religion,  7 

persecution  of  Christians,  8  etseq. 

first  edict,  10,  11 

illness,  12 

resignation,  13 
Diodore,  Bp.  of  Tarsus,  220 

at  Antioch,  312 

and  ApoUinaris,  326 

his  character  and  doctrine,  347, 
476,  477 

Counc.  of  Aquileia,  350 
Disciplinary  canons,    119,    178    et 

seq. 
Dius,  an  Egyptian  martyr,  37 
Divinity  of  Christ,  177 
Docetism,  471 
Donatism,  72,  73,  76  n. 

schisms,  79  et  seq.,  90 

and  Constantine,  92,  93,  188,  514 

in  Numidia,  95 

and  Constans,  190,  191 

suppression  of,  192  et  seq. 

return  of  the  leaders,  263,  516 

at  Rome,  366 
Donatus  of  Cas<£  Nigrce  (see  also 
Donatism) 

the  schism  at  Carthage,  83  et  seq. 

Roman  Counc,  86,  87 

and  Constantine,  92  et  seq.,  188 

death,  193 
Donatus,  Bp.  of  Bagai,  191,  192 
Dorotheus,  the  eunuch,  and  Diocle- 
tian, 7 

death,  11 


Dorotheus,  Bp.  of  Antioch,  sent  to 
Rome  by  Basil,  319,  328 

his  return,  325 

Arian  disputes,  457 
Dracontius  of  Pergamum,  245 
Drus,  Rufinus'  basilica  at,  494 

Easter,  date  of,  no  et  seq.,  460 
Eastern  Church,  170  et  seq. 

and  canon  of  appeals,  179,  180 

and  Arianism,  184 

under  Valens,  317 

and  Rome,  320,  321,  352,  353 

and  Paulinus,  346 

and  canons  of  ConP'",  348,  349 

Counc.  of  Aquileia,  357,  377 

under  Theodosius,  448  et  seq. 
Ecclesiastical  authority,  520,  521 
Ecdicius,  Bp.  of  Parnassos,  324 
Edessa,  notable  for  its  Christianity, 
5,6 

and  Ephrem,  484,  485 
Egypt,  Christians  in,  5,  26 

persecutions  in,  36,  yj,  321 

Meletian  schism,  76  et  seq. 

disturbances  at  Alexandria,  310, 

311 
fatherland  of  the  monks,  385  et 

seq. 
religious  crisis,  405  et  seq. 
Eleusius  of  Cyzicus,  231,  240,  241 
Counc.  of  ConP'",  245,  343 
doctrine,  288 
and  Valens,  295 
Elvira,  Counc.  of,  419 
Emerita,  421 

Emesa,  burning  of  Christian  ceme- 
tery at,  265 
Ephrem  and  Edessa,  484,  485 
Epictetus,  Bp.  of  Centumcellae,  209, 

359 
Counc.  of  Ariminum,  238,  286 
Epiphanius,  Bp.  of  Salamis,98, 99  «. 
Counc.  of  Sirmium,  201 
his  monastery,  406,  466 
his  Panarion,  461,  467 
hatred  for  heretics,  467 
and  Paulinus,  468,  474 
and  Vitalis,  474 
"Essence,"  meaning  of,   177,  228, 
237,  278,  281,  320 
term  forbidden,  244 
Etheria,    the    pilgrim,    visits    the 
Thebaid,  403 


INDEX 


533 


Euchites.     See  Massalians 
Eudoxius,  Bp.  of  Germanicia  and 
Con'''%  an  Arian,  183 

curious  views,  230,  246 

at  Antioch,  231,  232,  242 

retires  to  Armenia,  235 

Counc.  of  Seieucia,  240 

at  Con"'^  246 

and  Lucifer,  272 

Counc.  of  Lampsacus,  289 

and  Counc.  at  Tarsus,  293 

and  Eunomius,  297,  298 

intrigues,  483 
Eugenius,  the  Usurper,  440 

policy,  504,  505 

defeat  of,  506 
Euhippius,  323 
Eulalius,  Bp.  of  Antioch,  130 
Eulogius,  banishment  and  return, 

Euodius  convicts  Priscillian,  425 
Eunomius,  Bp.,  at  Carthage,  93 

and  Eudoxius,  231 

retires  to  Armenia,  235 

and  Aetius,  296  ei  seq. 

Arian  disputes,  456-458,  517 
Euphratesian  Province,  483 
Euphronius,  Bp.  of  Antioch,  131 
Euphronius  of  Colonia,  324 
Eusebia,  Empress,  and  Julian,  254, 

257 
Eusebius,  Bp.  of  Cassarea — writings 
and  influence,  32,  104,  125-127 

on   martyrs   of  Palestine,  32  et 
seq. 

on  bishops  of  his  own  country, 

33 
discourse  at  Tyre,  54 
identification  of  holy  sites,  64  n. 
state  of  Rome,  74  /?.,  75  «. 
at  Nicomedia,  105 
synod  in  Bithynia,  107 
Counc.  of  Nicasa,  in  «.,  114 
Egyptian  disputes,  122,  123 
and  Athanasius,  125  ct  seq. 
and  Eustathius  of  Antioch,  127, 

128 
and  church  at  Antioch,  130,  131 
Counc.  of  Tyre,  140 
and  Marcellus    of  Ancyra,    148, 

149 
death,  158,  169 
and  Eusebius  of  Edessa,  159 
Dedication  Counc,  168,  169 


Eusebius,  Bp.  of  Cassarea  {cont.) — 
Works  quoted — 

77/1?     Martyrs    of    Palestine, 
II  «.-i3,  20 
described,  32  ei  seq. 
Ecclesiastical  History,  22,  24, 
26,27,28,31,  32,  37  .?/ j-^^., 
50,  54,  62,  74,  85,  86,  88, 
104,  126 
Vicennalia  of  Constantine,  an 
oration,  56  n.-di  n.,  64  n., 
69,    71,    108,   III    et  seq., 
123,  130,  136,  139 
DemonstratioEvangelica,(32^n., 
126 
Works    on    biblical   geography, 
62 
Preparatio  Evangelica,  126 
Against  Marcellus,  1 49 
The   Theology  of  the   Church, 

.     '49 
Eusebius,  Bp.  of  Nicomedia,  71 

history  of,  105 

and  Arius,  105  et  seq. 

and  Counc.  of  Nicsea,  122,  I23 

and  Constantine,  131 

and  ex-Empress  Constantia,  137 

and  Athanasius,  156 

becomes  Bp.  of  Con'''*,  158 

defence  at  Counc.  of  Dedication, 
166  et  seq. 

policy  and  death,  169 

education  of  Theophilus,  222 

and  Julian,  254 

and  Ulfilas,  451 
Eusebius  of  Edessa,  159 
Eusebius,  Pope,  75 
Eusebius,  Bp.  of  Samosata,  312 

and  Basil,  320 

exiled  to  Thrace,  323,  483 

return  of,  333 

character,  483 

perished  at  Dolicha,  484 
Eusebius,  Bp.  of  Vercelte,  at  Counc. 
of  Beziers,  2c6,  207 

imprisoned  in  the  Thebaid,  272 

and  Athanasius,  277 

Counc.  of  Alexandria,  279 

and  Auxentius,  285,  286 

and  Germinius,  287,  288 

and  Evagrius,  321 
Eusebius,      Grand      Chamberlain 
under    Constantius     II.  —  his 
death,  258 


534 


INDEX 


Eustathius,    Bp.   of    Antioch,   and 
Counc.  of  Nicaea,  113,  151 
and  Arians,  114 
and  Eusebius  of  CiEsarea,  127 
exiled  to  Trajanopolis,   129,  219 
death,  130,  219 
Eustathius,  Bp.  of  Sebaste — Counc. 
of  Ancyra,  231 
deposed,  245,  307 
monastic  life  and  doctrines,  247, 

248,  304  et  seq.,  410,  411 
delegate  to  Valentinian  and  Lib- 

erius,  292 
and  Eusebius,  304,  305 
Counc.  of  Gangra,  305,  411 
and  Basil,  315  et  seq.,  411 
Counc.  at  Cyzicus,  328,  343 
death,  343 
Eutropia,  mother  of  Maxentius,  65 

put  to  death,  197 
Eutychius,  Bp.  of    Eleutheropolis, 

272 
Euzoius,  Arian  Bp.  of  Antioch,  248 
baptizes  Constantius,  249 
scenes  at  Antioch,  267,  276,  280 
and  Paulinus,  291 
and  Theophilus,  298 
revenge    on    Church    of    Alex- 
andria, 311,  312 
death,  337 
Evagrius,     Bp.    of    Antioch,    and 
Eusebius  of  Vercellee,  321,  479 
Rome  and  the  East,  321 
imprisonment  and  death,  337 
consecration,  479,  480 
and  Flavian,  483 

Fasir,  the  Circumcellion,  190 
Faustus,  an  Egyptian  martyr,  37 
Felix,  Bp.  of  Aptonga,  and  Max- 
entius, 82 

condemnation  of,  84 

enquiry  on,  90-92,  188 
Felix,  Bp.  of  Rome,  and  Liberius, 

233,  359,  360 
death,  361 
Felix,  Bp.  of  Thibiuca,  17 
Felix,  Bp.  of  Treves,  425,  427 
Firmian,  imprisonment  of,  287 
Firmicus    Maternus,   an    advocate 

of  Syracuse — The  Falsehood  of 

the  Profane  Religions,  253 
Firmilian,  Bp.  of  Csesarea  in  Cap- 

padocia,  62 


Flaccillus,  Bp.  of  Antioch,  140 
The    Theology  of   the    Church, 
dedicated  to,  149 
Flavian,  Bp.  of  Antioch,  champion 
of  orthodox  faith — and   Leon- 
tius,  220 
and  Diodore,  312,  350,  476 
succeeds  Meletius,  350 
character,  477 
and  Meletius,  478 
goes  to  Con"*'",  479 
and  Evagrius,  479  et  seq. 
schism  at  Antioch,  480,  481 
Counc.  of  Con'^''',  482 
death,  483 
Flavianus,  Nicomachus,  Prefect  of 

Rome,  503,  506 
Fortunatian,   Bp.  of  Aquileia,  206, 

225 
Fronto  of  Nicopolis,  324 
Fundanus,    Bp.,    burning    of    the 
sacred  books,  17 

Gaius,    Bp.,  excommunication  of, 
238 

and  Germinius,  2S8 
Galatia,  under  Diocletian,  301 

and  Cappadocia,  312,  313 

Counc.  held  in,  323 
Galerius,  Emp.,  character,  3,  20 

persecution   of   Christians,   9  et 
seq.,  21  «.,  46 

as  emp.,  13,  14 

death,  15,  24 

illness,  and   edict   in    favour    of 
Christians,  22,  23 
Galicia,  asceticism  in,  421 

birthplace  of  Theodosius,  429 
Gallienus,  Emp.,  assassinated,  i 
Gallus,  Emp. — early  life,  154,  254 

marriage,  198 

execution  of,  199 

and  Aetius,  221,  257 

and  paganism,  251 

Gangra,  Counc.  of,  305,  411 
Gaudentius  of  Naissus,  174 
Gaul,  Christianity  in,  6 

troubles       under      Constantius, 

359 
orthodox  party,  374 
Counc.  of  Aquileia,  376 
monastery  of  Liguge,  417 
landing  of  Maximus,  423 
Priscillianism  in,  427 


INDEX 


)35 


Gaul  {coniitiued) — 

legends  of  martyrdoms  in,  512 
Gaza,  Christianity  in,  6 

fall  of  paganism,  61,  511 
George    of    Cappadocia,     Bp.     of 
Alexandria — early  life,  213 
character,  259 
murder  of,  260 
George,  Bp.  of  Laodicea,  proscrip- 
tion of,  176,  242 
and  Athanasius,  216 
and  Eudoxius,  230,  231 
Counc.  of  Seleucia,  240 
and  the  Apollinarii,  274 
Germinius,  Bp.  of  Sirmium,  201 
and  Creed  of  Nicoea,  227,  228 
Counc.  of  Ariminum,  238 
and  Heraclian,  287,  288 
and  Ursacius,  288 
Gervase,   a   Milanese   martyr — ex- 
humation    of      body     causes 
miracles,  438 
Golden  Horn,  the,  origin  of  name, 

66 
Golgotha  and  the  Holy  Sepulchre, 
by  Major-Gen.  Sir  C,  Wilson, 
64  n. 
site  of,  64 
Gorgonius   and   Diocletian,  7,    11, 

212 
Goths,    the,    subjugation    of,    309, 
310 
defeat  Roman  army,  331-333 
invasion  of,  375,  436 
Arianism  among,  448  et  seq. 
Gratian,  Emp.,  son  of  Valentinian, 
and  Theodosius,  333 
and  St  Ambrose,  351,  352,  370, 

435 
and     his    brother     Valentmian, 

370 
tries  and  acquits  Pope  Damasus, 

371 
character,  373,  498 
killed  at  Lyons,  423,  435 
and  religion,  498  et  seq. 
Gratus,  Bp.  of  Carthage,  Counc.  on 

Donatism,  193,  194 
Gregory  the  Cappadocian,  Bp.  of 
Alexandria,  159 
and  Athanasius,  166,  174  «.,  175 
death,  185 
Gregory,   I5p.   of    Nazianzus,    303, 
304 


Gregory  of  Nazianzus,  Bp.  of 
Sasima  and  Con'"'*',  son  of 
above,  and  Basil,  303,  315,  320, 

334 

an  ascetic  and  leader  of  orthodox 
party,  337,  338 

his  discourses  on  the  Trinity,  338 

Arians  attack  the  Anastasis,  338 

deceived  by  Maximus  the  Cynic, 
339,  340 

affairs  at  Con''"'',  340,  341 

his  lost  opportunity,  341 

the  Counc.  of  ConP'%  343,  346 

the  succession  at  Antioch,  346 

resignation,  347 

and  Jerome,  380 

Philocalia,  465 

retirement  and  will,  465,  466 

and  the  Apollinarians,  466 

death,  466 
Gregory,  Bp.  of  Nyssa,  brother  of 
St  Basil,  315,  334 

escape  from  custody,  324 

death  of  Meletius,  345 

Counc.  of  Aquileia,  350 

and  Anomceans,  458 

The  Soul  and  the  Resurrection, 
464 

doctrine  of  final  restoration,  465 

goes  to  Palestine,  489 
Gregory,  Bp.  of  lUiberris — his  con- 
flict with  Hosius,  284 

a  Luciferian,  367,  418 
Gregory,  Praetorian  Prefect  of  Italy, 
and  Donatus,  188 

Hannibalian,  brother  of  Con- 
stantine,  153 

Hannibalian,  King  of  Pontus,  son 
of  Delmatius — murder  of,  1 54 

Harran,  Semitic  religion  of,  6,  511 

Hebron,  sites  at,  65 

Helena,  Empress,  mother  of  Con- 
stantine    the    Great,    and    St 
Lucian,  129 
and  Eustathius,  129 

Heliopolis,  6 

Helladius,  Bp.  of  Ca^sarea,  342,  350 

Helpidius,  Bp.  of  Satala,  245 
deposition  of,  307 

Helvidius  and  Jerome,  383 

Heortasius,  Bp.  of  Sardis,  deposi- 
tion of,  245 

Heraclian  and  Germinius,  287 


536 


INDEX 


Heraclius  and  Eusebius,  75 
Heremius,    Bp.    of    Thessalonica, 

225 
Herenas  and  Priscillianism,  430 
Hermanaric,  King,  and  the  Chris- 
tians, 452 
Hermogenes,  Bp.  of  Ceesarea,  and 
Nicene  Creed,  303 
and  Eustathius,  304 
Hermon,  Bp.  of  Aelia,  33 
Hesychius,      Bp.,     an      Egyptian 
martyr,  37 
and  St  Peter  of  Alexandria,  T'j 
Hierocles,  governor  of  Phoenicia, 
persecutes  Christians,  34,  43 
To  the  Christians^  the  friend  of 
truth,  43 
Hilarion,  St,  an  ascetic,  405,  406 
Hilary,    Bp.    of  Poitiers,  and   the 
Nicene  creed,  204 
and  Liberius,  206 
and  Counc.  of  Beziers,  207 
exiled  to  Phrygia,  230 
and  Eudoxius,  230 
at  Counc.  of  Seleucia,  240 
indignation  at  Western  bps.,  243, 

246 
Counc.  of  Paris,  270 
death,  414 
character,  414 
and   St    Martin   of  Tours,   416, 

417. 
His  writings — 

On  the  Synods  and  faith  of  the 

Easterns,  234 
Against  Constantius,  247,  415 
De  Synodis,  270,  415 
Commentary  on  St  Matthew, 

415 
canticle  by,  415 
other  writings,  415,  416 
Holy  Places,  the,  62  et  seq. 
Holy  Sepulchre,  the,  64 
Holy  Spirit,  doctrine  of  the,  293 
Homoioiisios,   the  (of  similar  sub- 
stance), 229 
St  Hilary  on,  234,  235 
condemnation  of,  237,  307 
after  Counc.  of  Seleucia,  241 
fusion  with  homoousios,  281,  292, 

293,  296 
after  Counc.  of  Lampsacus,  289, 

291 
after  Counc.  of  Cyzicus,  328 


Hofnoousios,    the    (of    the     same 
substance),  121 
after  Counc.  of  Nicaea,  127,  177, 

180,  202,  357 
creed  of  Antioch,  224 
and  Hosius,  227,  228 
second  formula  of  Sirmium,  228, 

229 
and  Constantius,  232 
St  Hilary  on,  234,  235 
formula  of  Sirmium,  237 
after  Counc.  of  Seleucia,  241 
fusion  with  hotnoiousios,  281,  282 
after  Counc.  of  Cyzicus,  328 
Honoratus,    Prefect   of   Constanti- 
nople, 242 
Hosius,  Bp.  of  Cordova,  48,  50 
attempted  reconciliation  of  Alex- 
ander and  Arius,  109,  no 
and  Counc.  of  Nicasa,  113  et  seq. 
and  Athanasius,  171 
the  Easterns  at  Sardica,  173,  174 
a  profession  of  faith,  176 
"Father  of  the   Councils,"   179, 

209 
his  blunders,  179,  180 
resistance  and  exile  to  Sirmium, 

209,  210 
and  Arians,  227  et  seq. 
deposed  by  Easterns,  358 
Huns,  the,  drive  Goths  into  Roman 
Empire,  453 
invade  Roman  Asia,  479 
Hyginus,    Bp.   of    Cordova,  joins 
Priscillianists,  420,  421 
exiled,  426 
Hypostasis,  meaning  of  term,  177, 

320 
Hypsis,  Bp.  of  Parnassos,  deposi- 
tion of,  324 

Ignatius,  St,  Bp.  of  Antioch,  and 

Docetism,  471 
Ingentius    and   the   case   of  Felix 

of  Aptonga,  90-92 
Innocent,  Pope,  and  Priscillianists, 

432 
Instantius,  Bp.,  a  Priscillianist,  420 
visits  Rome  and  Milan,  422 
deposed,  423 
exiled,  425 
Irene,  Church  of,  68 
Isaac,  a  converted  Jew,  intrigues 
against  Damasus,  371 


INDEX 


537 


Ischyras  and  Athanasius,  138 

the  affair  of,  141 

made  a  bishop,  147 
Isidore  and  Meletius,  78 
Isonius,  431 
Italy,  Christianity  in,  6 

invasion  by  Constantine,  15 

troubles  under  Constantius,  359 

orthodox  party  in,  374 
Ithacius,  Bp.  of  Ossonova — escape 
to  Gaul,  422,  423 

excommunicated,  425,  426 

imprisoned  at  Naples,  427 

James,  Bp.  of  Nisibis — his  virtue, 
114 

siege  of  Nisibis,  197 
Jerome,  St — De  Viris,  130  «.,  446 

catalogue        of        ecclesiastical 
writers,  299 

censures  aljuses   of    Church    of 
Rome,  365,  442 

early  life,  378 

an  ascetic,  379,  410,  478 

learning    and    writings,    379    et 
seq.,  445,  446 

an  admirer  of  Origen,  380 

and  Pope  Damasus,  381-383 

attacks  on,  382 

journey  to  Holy  Places,  384 

and  Pacomian  institutions,  398 

at  Alexandria,  402 

and  Priscillianism,  434 

and  Jovinian,  445 

literary  jealousy,  446 

and  Cyril,  488 

and  Didymus,  490 
Jerusalem.      See    Aelia   Capito- 

LINA 

John   of  Lycopolis — his   austerity, 

399 
John,  the  Reader — blind,  and  knew 

Bible  by  heart,  36 
Jovian,  Emp.,  a  Christian,  268 
and  Athanasius,  280,  281 
death,  283 
Jovinian — his   doctrine,  and  reac- 
tion    from     asceticism,     443- 

445 
condemnation,  444 
and  Jerome,  445 
Julian,  Emp. — escape  of,  1 54 
and  Donatism,  195 
governs  Gaul,  199 


Julian,  Emp.  {continued) — 

proclaimed  Emp.,  249 

and  pagan  reaction,  250  et  seq. 

early  life  and  education,  2 54  etseq. 

beliefs,  257 

death  of  Constantius  and  entry 
into  ConP'«,  258 

gives  paganism  its  revenge,  258 
et  seq. 

ideals,  260,  261 

exclusion  of  Christians,  263 

massacre  of  Christians,  266 

scenes  at  Antioch,  266,  267 

his  Misppogon,  267 

death,  268,  280 

and  Athanasius,  280 

and  Titus,  492 

and  the  altar  of  Victory,  502 
Julius  Africanus — studies  in  Pales- 
tine, 62 
Julius  Constantius.    See  CONSTAN- 
TIUS 
Julius,  Pope — letter  of,  162-164 

Counc.  of  Sardica,  172  etseq. 

canon  of  appeals,  179,  180 

and  Athanasius,  186 

submission     of     Ursacius     and 
Valens,  187 

death,  203 

Roman    Church    and    doctrine, 

357,  358 
Justina,    Empress,   friend    of   the 

Arians,  435 

Labeo,  Cornelius,  42 
Lactantius,  a    Christian  apologist, 
and  origin  of  persecution,  9 
life  and  learning  of,  42,  43 
His  writings — 
Institutiones,  19  «.,  20  «.,  34  «., 

42 
De  Morte  Persecutorutn,  22  n., 

34 
De  opificio  Dei,  42 
De  ira  Dei,  42 
Lampsacus,  Counc.  of,  289 
Latronianus,  a  poet,  execution  of, 

425 
Lauricius,  Dux,  military  governor — 

Counc.  of  Seleucia,  240,  241 
Leontius,  Bp.  of  Antioch,  182 
and  Athanasius,  216 
schisms  at  Antioch,  219  et  seq. 
death,  223 


538 


INDEX 


Libanius,  218,  260 

plea  for  the  temples,  508,  509 
Liber  Pontificalis^  73 
Liberius,  Pope,  203 

and  Constantius,  206,  208 

exiled,  208,  209 

yielding  of,  225 

and  Felix,  233,  360,  361 

Counc.  of  Paris,  271 

after  Ariminum,  284 

and  Homoiousians,  292 

death,  293 

troubles  under  Constantius,  359 
ef  seq. 
Licinius,  Emp.,  14,  15 

defeats  Maximin,  28 

proclamation  for  liberty  of  Chris- 
tians, 28-31 

and  Constantine,  49 

the  East  under  the  government 
of,  S2>efseq.,  59 

hostility  of,  55 

downfall  and  death,  56,  57 
Liguge,  monastery  of,  417 
Literary  polemics,  41-44 
Logos-doctrine  and  Arianism,  100 

et  seq. 
Lucian,  priest  of  Antioch,  execu- 
tion of,  25,  26 

and  Empress  Helena,  129 
Lucifer,  Bp.  of  Caliaris,  exile  of,  206, 
207,  272 

and  Athanasius,  277 

ordains      Paulinus     as     Bp.    of 
Antioch,  279 

obstinacy,  284 

and  defaulters  of  Arminum,  366, 

.     367        .  . 
Lucilla,  opposition  to  Caecilian,  83, 

84 
Lucius,  Bp.  of  Rome,  and  Eastern 

bishops,  180 
banishment,  291 
Lucius,     entry     into     Alexandria, 

.3". 

Lusitania,  province  of,  421 

Macarius,  Bp.  of  Aelia  (Jeru- 
salem), and  Holy  Places,  63, 
64,  486 

Macarius,  Presbyter  of  Athanasius, 
brought  to  Tyre  in  chains,  139, 
142 
at  ConP'^  146 


Macarius,  Presbyter  of  Athanasius 
{confhiieed) — 
departs  for  the  East,  158 
goes  as  commissioner  to  Africa, 
190 
Macarius  of  Egypt,  a  monk,  386, 

392 
Macarius  of  Alexandria,  a  monk, 
386,  392,  399 
and  hyena,  405 
Macedonia,  Christianity  in,  6 
Macedonians,      otherwise      called 
Pneumatomachi,  Semi-Arians, 
294-296 
in    Western     Asia     Minor    and 

Bithynia,  312 
and  Eustathius,  328,  343 
Arian  disputes,  457 
and  Basil,  463 
in  Palestine,  488  n. 
Macedonius,    Bp.    of    Con^'^    and 
Eusebius,  169,  170 
delegate  to  Emp.  Constans,  183 
Counc.  of  Seleucia,  240 
deposed,  245 
at  Coni''«,  294 
and  Ambrose,  423  n, 
and  the  Novatians,  515 
Macrina,    superior   of   the  Annesi 

monastery,  464 
Magnentius,    Emperor,  usurpation 
of,  1 96  et  seq. 
defeat  at  Mursa,  and  death,  198 
and  paganism,  251 
Magnus,  imperial  commissioner  in 
Egypt — disturbances  at  Alex- 
andria, 311 
Maiouma,  port  of  Gaza,  266 
Majorinus,  Bp.  of  Carthage,  84 
Malchion,  a  presbyter  of  Antioch, 

201 
Mamre,  oak  of,  65 
Manicheans,  7,  432,  433,  492,  513 

et  seq. 
Mantineion,  the  Novatians  at,  515 
Marathonius    of    Nicomedia,     an 

ascetic,  295,  306 
Marcellinus,  Pope,  and  the  Dona- 
tists,  73 
death,  73 

omitted  from  calendar,  74 
Marcellinus,     General,    recaptures 

Rome,  197 
Marcellus,  Pope,  enthroned,  75 


INDEX 


539 


Marcellus,  Bp.  of  Ancyra,  and  Anti- 
Arian    controversy,     114,    147 
et  seq. 
and  Sabellianism,  121,  148,  149 
deposed,  148 

theology  of,  149-152,  165,  168,  357 
in  Rome,  162 
and  orthodoxy,  165 
and  Pope  Julius,  168 
and  Counc.  of  Sardica,  iT^etseq. 
and  Photinus,  183 
and  Athanasius,  185 
Counc.  of  Sirmium,  201 
and  the  hoinoousios,  219 
death,  331 
Marcellus,    Bp.    of    Apamea,   and 

paganism,  511 
Marcellus,   the  centurion,   martyr- 
dom of,  8  n. 
Marcian,  Bp.  of  Lampsacus,  and 
Counc.  of  ConP'%  343 
a  Novatian,  459,  460 
Marcionites,  136,  366,  514 
Marculus,  a  Donatist  prelate,  chas- 
tisement of,  191 
death,  192 
Marinus,  Bp.  of  Aries,  delegate  to 

Rome,  86 
Marinus,  an  Arian,  457 
Maris  of  Chalcedon,  an  Arian,  and 
the  new  creed  of  Antioch,  170, 
244 
Mark,   Bp.  of  Arethusa,   and  new 
creed  of  Antioch,  170 
draws    up   the    dated    creed   of 

Sirmium,  236,  237,  288 
tortured,  265,  266 
Mark  of  Memphis,  a  Gnostic,  420 
Marnas,  the  local  god  at  Gaza,  511 
Martin,  St,    Bp.  of  Tours,  driven 
from  Sabaria,  286,  287 
early  life,  416,  417 
struggles  against  paganism,  424- 
426,  512 
Martyrius,  a  delegate  to  Emp.  Con- 

stans,  183 
Martyrs,  of  Palestine,  32,  33 

of  Egypt,  36,  37 
Martyrs  of  Palestine^    The.      See 

EUSEBIUS 
Massalians,  the,  or   Euchites,  461 

et  seq. 
Maternus,  Bp.  of  Cologne,  delegate 
to  Rome,  86 


Maxentius,  Emp.,  14 

defeat    at    Milvian    Bridge,    by 
Constantine,  and  death,  15, 

45,  48 
treatment  of  Christians,  20,   23, 

.74 

banishment  of  Marcellus,  75 

and  Africa,  79 
Maximian,  Emp.,  3 

abdication,  13 

death,  14 
Maximin,  Emp.,  persecution  of,  23, 
et  seq..,  261 

panic  of,  27 

defeat  and  death  of,  28 
Maximin,  Bp.  of  Treves,  171 

deposed,  358 
Maximin,  Daia.     See  Daia 
Maximilian,  a  conscript,  execution, 

8  ;/. 
Maximus,   Christian  Emp.,  enters 
Treves,  423 

Counc.  at  Bordeaux,  423 

and  St  Martin,  424 

execution  of  Priscillian,  425 

the  reaction,  427 

and  Valentinian  II.,  435,  436 

enters  Italy,  438,  439 

defeat  and  execution,  439,  503 
Maximus,    Bp.    of  Jerusalem,  and 
Athanasius,  186 

sent  to  the   mines   by  Emperor 
Daia,  486 
Maximus,  Bp.  of  Ephesus,  256 
Maximus,  the  Cynic,  Bp,  of  Con'''" — 
treatment  of  Gregory,  339,  340 

banished,  340 

ordination  declared  void,  348 
Melania,  daughter  of  Marcellinus, 
in  Egypt,  405 

and  Rufinus,  490,  491 
Meletians,  the,  schisms,  76-79 

and  Athanasius,  134,  135 
Meletius,  Bp.  of  Antioch,  247 

driven  from  Antioch,    248,   291, 
312 

and  Basil,  319,  320,  322,  330 

returns  to  Antioch,  333 

and  Rome,  335 

position  under  Theodosius,  337 

Counc.  of  Con'''%  342,  344 

death,  345 
Meletius,  Bp.  of  Lycopolis,  36 

journey  through  Egypt,  TJ^  78 


540 


INDEX 


Meletius,  Bp.  of  Lycopolis  {conL)— 
sent  to  mines,  78 
forbidden  to  exercise  any  pastoral 
functions,  116 
Melito,  Bp.  of  Sardis,  62 
Mensurius,  Bp.  of  Carthage — con- 
cealment of  sacred  books,  16, 
80-82 
death,  82 
Mesopotamia,  martyrdoms  in,  40 
Milan,    Counc.    of,    184,    206,   207, 
225 
Ambrose  at,  436,  438 
Miltiades,  Pope,  at  Rome,  51,  76 

Roman  Counc,  86 
Milvian  Bridge,  battle  at,    15,  27, 

46,48 
Modalists,  the,  121,  122 
Monasteries,  394  et  seq. 
Monks  of  the  East,  385  ei  seq.,  408, 

488-491 
Monotheism,  121 
Montanists,  the,  136,  366,  460 
Montenses,  the,  366 
Moses,  a  brigand-chief,  393 
Mursa,  battle  of,  198 

Narcissus  of  Neronias,  170,  176, 

235 
and  Athanasius,  216 
Nazianzus,  314,  315 
Nectarius,  Archbp.  of  Con"'*,  347 
Counc.  of  Aquileia,  350 
Counc.  of  ConP'^,  482 
Neon,   Bp.   of    Seleucia,  deposed, 

245 
Nepotianus,  death  of,  197 
Nicasa,  Counc.  of,  112  et  seq.,  168, 
^77,  235,  459 
Creed   of,  117  et  seq.,  177,  207, 
224,    238,    274   et  seq.,   290, 
348,  375 
Nicomachus    Flavianus,   a   pagan 

Prsetorian  prefect,  503-506 
Nicomedia  —  burning    of     sacred 
books  at,  10 
martyrdoms  at,  39 
new  churches  at,  66 
Nicopolis,  Counc.  of,  324 
Nilus,  an  Egyptian  bp.,  36 
Nimes,  Counc.  at,  428 
Nisibis,  siege  of,  197 

St  Ephrem,  James  of,  197 
Nitria,  the  monks  of,  391  et  seq. 


Novatians,  the,  118,  136,  177 

at  Rome,  366 

toleration  for  their  churches,  457 

at  ConP'^459,  460,  515 

defeat  imperial  troops,  515,  516 
Numerian,  Emp.,  death  of,  2 
Numidia,  Donatism  in,  95 
Nundinarius,  the  deacon,  and  Sil- 

vanus,  95-97 
Nyssa,  Counc.  of,  324 

Old  Ad,  monastic  colony  at,  406 

Olives,  Mount  of,  grotto  on,  65 
Latin  colony  of,  490 

Olympias,  the  celebrated  matron, 
464 

Olympius,  Bp.,  sent  as  commis- 
sioner to  Carthage,  93 

Olympius,  pagan  philosopher — his 
successful  defence  of  the  Sera- 
peum,  509 

Optatus,  Bp.  of  Milevis,  188,  190 «.- 

193 
Optimus,  Bp.  of  Antioch  (Pisidia), 

350,  463 
Origen,  and  grotto  of  the  Nativity, 
62 
and  Catechetical  school,  100 
the  Logos-doctrine,  loi 
at  Ccesarea,  104 
and  his  bishop,  124 
his  works  found  in  monasteries, 

.394 
his  figurative  exegesis,  415 
Hellenic  culture,  468 
and  Rufinus,  491 
Orosius — his  Commomtonum,  434 
Orsisius,  397 

Orthodoxy,  the  defeat  of,  2\Zetseq. 
Otreius,  Bp.  of  Melitene,  350 
Oxyrhynchus,  monks  at,  400 

Pacatus    Drepanius,  the   rhetori- 
cian, 428 
Pachymius,  an  Egyptian  martyr,  37 
Pacian,  Bp.  of  Barcelona,  418 
Pacomius,    an   ascetic — pious    life, 
357,  386,  394<?/j^^. 
and  Athanasius,  397 
Paganism,    persecution    of    Chris- 
tians, 9  et  seq. 
fate  of  temples,  61 
reaction  of,  250  et  seq. 
end  of,  496  et  seq.,  507 


INDEX 


541 


Palestine,  monks  of,  408,  488-491 
Palladius,   Bp.  of  Helenopolis,  an 
ascetic,  Lansiac  History^  402  n. 
banishment  of,  404 
Palladius,  Bp.  of  Ratiaria,  454 
Pambo  of  Nitria,  death  of,  405 
Pammachius,     the     senator,     444, 

445  .     . 

Pamphilus,     disciple     of    Origen, 

martyrdom  of,  33,  34 
Paphnutius,  Bp.  of  lieracleopolis, 
mutilation  of,  114 
his  mortifications,  401 
Pancratius,  priest,  206 
Paris,  Counc.  of,  271 
Paschasius,  the  eunuch,  373 
Patermouthios,       the       confessor, 

execution  of,  36 
Paternus,  Arian  bp.,  205,  429,  431 
Patripassianism,  433 
Patrophilus,  Arian   bp.,  of   Scyth- 
opolis,  236,  240 
deprivation  of,  242,  273 
Paul,  Bp.  of  ConP'^  80 

driven  out  by  Eusebius,  158,  169 
death,  170 
and  Germinius,  288 
Paul  of  Neocassarea,  mutilation  of, 

114 
Paulianists,  the,  118,  136,  218 
Paulinus,  Bp.  of  Tyre,  62 

death,  130 
Paulinus,  Bp.  of  Treves,  exile  of, 

205 
Paulinus,  Bp.  of  Eustathian  party 
at  Antioch,  219,  273,  277,  278 
and    Meletius,   325,  326  et  seq., 

337,  345 
and  Damasus,  327  et  seq. 
and  the  Counc.  of  Aquileia,  351 
and  the  Roman  Counc,  353,  354 
and  Jerome,  380 
consecrates  Evagrius,  479,  480 
Pelagius,  Bp.  of  Laodicea,  312,  320, 

350 
Persecution,    the   Great,    8-12,    15 

et  seq. 
Persona,  meaning  of,  177 
Peter    I.,   Bp.    of  Alexandria,  and 
canons  of  Coun.  of  Ancyra,  19 
beheaded  without  trial,  25 
in  Lower  Egypt,  37 
and  Meletian  schism,  76-79 
takes  refuge  in  Rome,  311 


Peter  II.,  Bp.  of  Alexandria,  instal- 
lation of,  325 

and  Marcellus,  330,  331 

returns  from  exile,  334 

position  under  Theodosius,  336 

and  Maximus  the  Cynic,  338-40 
Peter,  Bp.  of  Sebaste,  343,  464 
Peter,  the  Christian  eunuch,  7 

death  of,  1 1 
Phasno  becomes  a  Christian  colony, 

35,  36 
Pharan,  407 
Philagrius,  Prefect  of  Egypt,   142, 

181 
Philastrius,  Bp.  of  Bresica,  434 
Phileas,  Bp.  of  Thmuis — his  learn- 
ing and  martyrdom,  37,  jy 
Philip,  Prsetorian  prefect,  170 
Philoromus,  martyrdom  of,  37 
Philoxenus,    a    priest,   and    Pope 

Julius,  172 
Phcebadius,  Bp.  of  Agen,  229 
and    Counc.   of  Ariminum,  239, 
270,  418 
Photinus,    Bp.    of  Sirmium,    nick- 
named  "Scotinus,"   183,    184, 
187 
exile  of,  200,  201 
Phrygia,  Christianity  in,  6 

Montanism  in,  460 
Pispir,   desert    of,    St  Antony   at, 

388,  389 
Pistus,   Arian   bp.   of    Alexandria, 

157 
Pneumatomachi.     See  Macedon- 
ians 
Pontifex  Maximus,  title  of,  49,  58 
Porphyry,  Greek  philosopher— his 

book  against  Christians,  41 
Porphyry,  Bp.  of  Gaza,  511 
Potamius,  Bp.  of  Lisbon,  210,  227 
Potamon  —  his    sufierings    in    the 

mines,  114 
Praetextatus.     See  Vettius 
Prisca,  Empress,  and  Christianity,  7 
Priscillian,  preaches  asceticism,  418 
et  seq. 
advent  of  Maximus,  423 
execution  of,  420,  425,  427 
and  Theodosius,  429 
and  Ambrose,  431 
Priscillianists,    reaction    in    favour 
of,  425  et  seq. 
their  doctrine,  433 


542 


INDEX 


Probus,  a  Christian    nobleman   in 

Rome,  and  Ambrose,  369 
Procopius,  a  reader  at  Scythopolis, 

33 
Procopius  as  Emp.  of  ConP'^,  and 

death,  298,  497 
Protogenes,    Bp.   of   Sardica,    de- 
posed, 174 
Counc.  of  Sardica,  176 
Purpurius,  Bp.  of  Limata,  80 
evidence  against,  95 

QUINTIANUS,    Bp.   of    Gaza,   and 
Counc.  of  Sardica,  176 

Ra'iTHU,    desert    of — massacre    of 

monks,  407 
Restitutus,  Bp.  of  Carthage,  238 

and  Athanasius,  374,  375 
Rheticius,  Bp.  of  Autun,  86 
Romanus,  rural  deacon  of  Ca^sarea, 

martyrdom  of,  39 
Rome,  under  Diocletian,  4,  12 
Constantine  at,  15,  67 
Christian   buildings  in,  51,  356, 

362 
schisms,  73  et  seq. 
Councs.   of,    86,  87,  352  et  seq., 

372 
recapture  by  Magnentius,  197 
and  the  East,  321 
church  and  doctrine,  357,  521 
troubles  under  Constantius,  359, 

362,  363 
sects  at,  366,  367 
closing  of  temples,  508 
Rufinus  of  Aquileia,  an  ascetic,  and 
Jerome,  378 
goes  to  Pispir,  403 
and  Melania,  490,  491 
Rufinus,  Praetorian  prefect,  493 

Sabas,  St,  drowning  of,  453 
Sabellianism,  128,  129 

doctrine,  149 

sects  at  Rome,  366 
Sabinus  the  deacon,  320 
Salianus,     a     general,    and      Bp. 

Stephen's  plot,  181,  182 
Salvian,  Bp.,  420,  422 
Sapor,  King,  attacks  Nisibis,  197 
Saragossa,  Counc.  of,  421,  429 
Sardica,    Counc.    of,    171    et  seq., 
358 


Sasima,  Gregory  at,  315 
Saturninus,  Bp.  of  Aries — his  zeal, 
205,  285 

Counc.  of  Beziers,  207,  229 

Counc.  of  Ariminum,  238 

excommunication,  270 
Schnoudi,  Bp.  of  Atripe,  and  the 

monastery  of,  398,  399 
Scotinus.  See  Photinus 
Sebaste  and  the  forty  martyrs,  55 

capital  of  Armenia  Minor,  301 
Sebastian,  Dux,  a  Manichean,  213, 

214 
Secundus,  Bp.  of  Tigisis,  80,  122 

schism  at  Carthage,  84,  85 
Seleucia,  236 

Counc.  of,  240  et  seq.,  487 
Seraglio,  the,  66 
Serapeum,  the,  500,  501 
Serapion,  Bp.  of  Thmuis,  203 
Servasius,  Bp.  of  Tongres,  Counc. 

of  Ariminum,  239,  270 
Severus,  Augustus,  13 

defeat  and  suicide,  14 

siege  of  Byzantium,  67 

(see  SuLPicius) 
Silvanus,    Bp.    of    Emesa,  put  to 

death,  25,  39 
Silvanus,  priest  of  Gaza,  33 
Silvanus,  Bp.  of  Constantina,  and 
Donatism,  95 

exiled,  96 
Silvanus,  Bp.  of  Tarsus,  240 

Counc.  of  Seleucia,  241 

deposed,  246 

as  delegate,  292 
Silvester,  Pope,  106,  356 
Simplicianus,  Bp.  of  Milan,  431 
Sinai,  407 
Siricius,  Pope,  and  Jerome,  384 

death,  430 

Counc.  of  Capua,  440-442 

schism  at  Antioch,  481 
Sirmium,  Counc.  of,  185,  201,  232 

second  formula  of,  228 
Sisinnius,  Bp.  of  the  Novationists, 

at  ConP'^  460 
Sophia,  St,  at  ConP'",  68,  338,  342- 

344 
Sophronius,    Bp.  of  Pompeiopolis, 

deposed,  245,  307 
Spain,  orthodox  party  in,  374 
ascetic  movement  in,  418  et  seq. 
Priscillian's  influence,  428 


INDEX 


543 


Stephen,  Bp.  of  Laodicea,  39 
Stephen,  Bp.   of  Antioch — Counc. 
of  Sardica,  172  et  seq. 
plotagainstWesternbps.,  181, 182 
deposed,  182 
Substance,  dissensions  as  to  use  of 
term,  228,  320,  325 
Germinius'  use  of,  288 
Sulpicius    Severus,    a    convert    to 
asceticism  and  St  Martin,  417 
and  Priscillianism,  432 
Symmachus,  Prefect  of  Rome,  and 

paganism,  502,  503,  505,  506 
Symposius,    Spanish    Bp. — Counc. 
of  Saragossa,  421 
and  Priscillianism,  429-431 
Syria,  Christianity  in,  5,  6,  476  et 
seq. 
famine  and  disease  in,  26 
monks  of,  408,  409 
paganism,  508,  5 1 1 
Syrianus,  Dux,  attack  on  Athana- 
sius,  210,  211 

Tabenna,  monks  of,  392 
Tatian,  the  apologist,  484 
Taurinus,  Count,  190 
Taiirobolia,  celebration  of,  251 
Taurus,  Praetorian  prefect — Counc. 

of  Ariminum,  239,  258 
Temples,  fate  of  the,  61 

used  as  churches,  507 
TertuUian,  41,  44,  177 
Tertullus,  Prefect  of  Rome,  252 
Tetrarchy,  the,  3 

dislocation  of,  12 
Thalia,  the,  by  Arius,  107 
Thebaid,  persecution  in,  36,  38 

organization  of,  403 
Themistius,  and  Emp.  Julian,  260 
Theoctistus,  a  Syrian  pastry-cook, 

457 
Theodore,   a   Tabennesian   monk, 

37,  77 

and  Athanasius,  397 

death,  398 
Theodore,  Bp.  of  Heraclea,  170,  176 
Theodore,  Bp.  of  Mopsuestia,  476, 

495 
Theodoret  on  Eustathius,  128 
Theodosius,    Emp.,    and    Gratian, 

333 
at  Thessalonica,  336,  340 
position  under,  337 


Theodosius,  Emp.  {continued) — 

and  Maximus,  340,  341 

Counc.  of  Coni''"',  342  et  seq. 

and  Nectarius,  347 

law   in   favour   of  the   orthodox 
party,  350 

Counc.  of  Aquileia,  351,  352 

Counc.  of  Rome,  352-354 

and  the  monks,  413 

and  Priscillianism,  429 

and  Ambrose,  439,  440 

death,  440 

Christianity   in  the  East  under, 
448  et  seq. 

and  the  sects,  455-458 

and  Rufinus,  493 

and  Valentinian  II.,  503,  504 

defeats  Eugenius,  506 

and  religion,  522 
Theodotus,  the  famous  heresiarch, 

67 
Theodotus,   Bp.  of  Laodicea,  123, 

183,  274 
Theodotus,  Bp.  of  Nicopolis,  and 
Basil,  322 
death,  324 
Theognis,   Bp.  of  Nicaea — Counc. 
of  Niccca,  122 
deposed,  123 
return,  131 

excommunicates  Ithacius,  425 
Theonas,  church  of,  211 
Theophilus,  an  ascetic,  and  Gallus, 
222,  223 
banishment,  235 
Theophilus,  Bp.  of  Alexandria,  and 
schism  at  Antioch,  481-483 
pagan  discoveries,  509,  510 
Theophilus,  Bp.  of  Castabala,  292 
Theophronius,  Bp.  of  Tyana,  and 

creeds  of  Antioch,  167 
Theotecnus,  Curator  of  Antioch — 

oracle  against  Christians,  24 
Thomas,  St,  485,  486 
Tiberianus,    the   rhetorician,    exile 

of,  425 
Timothy,  Archbp.    of  Alexandria, 
346 
Counc.  of  Aquileia,  351 
Timothy,    Bp.    of    Berytus,     con- 
demnation of,  334 
Titus  of  Bostra,  his  treatise  against 

the  Manicheans,  492 
Toledo,  Counc  of,  429,  430 


544 


INDEX 


Tours,  Church  of,  417 

Treves,  condemnation  of  Priscillian 

_  at,  423-426 
Trt'cennalia  oi  Constantme,  139 

of  Constantius,  204 
"Trinity"  of  theology,  470 
Turin,  Counc.  of,  428 
Tyana,  292,  314 
Tyrannion,  Bp.  of  Tyre,  39 
Tyre,   Counc.  of,   140  e^  seq.,  199, 
203,  208,  224 

Ulfilas,   Bp.  of  the  Goths,  244, 

451  et  seq. 
Uranius,  Bp.,  451 

Ursacius,     Bp.     of     Singidunum, 
176 
repudiation,  and  return  to  Arian- 

ism,  184,  187,  201 
Counc.  of  Beziers,  207 
and  the   Creed  of   Nicaea,  227- 

229 
signs  Basil's  declarations,  235 
Counc.  of  Ariminum,  238 
and  Acacius,  243 
influence  in  Pannonia,  286 
and  Germinius,  288 
and  Damasus,  368 
Ursinus,  antipope  in  opposition  to 
Damasus,  362,  363,  366,  370 
twice  exiled,  362,  365 
return,  364 

imprisoned  at  Cologne,  371 
death,  373 
and  Ambrose,  436 

Valence,  Counc.  of,  418 

Valens,    Emp.,    and    Valentinian, 
283 
Counc.  of  Lampsacus,  289,  293 
war     on    the     Lower    Danube, 

309. 
and  Basil,  313 
rehgious  policy,  317  «.,  497 
defeat    and  disappearance,  332, 

333 
and  monks  of  Nitria,  412 
and  Cyril,  487,  488 


Valens,  Arian  Bp.  of  Mursa,  176 

repudiation,  and  return  to  Arian- 
ism,  184,  187,  201 

proscription  of  Athanasius,  204 

Counc.  of  Beziers,  207 

second  formula  of  Sirmium,  227 
et  seq. 

signs  Basil's  declarations,  235 

dated  creed  of  Sirmium,  237 

Counc.  of  Ariminum,  238 

and  Acacius,  243 

influence  in  Pannonia,  286 

and  Germinius,  288 

and  Eunomius,  299 

and  Damasus,  368 
Valentinian,  Emp.,  and  Valens,  283 

religious  policy,  365,  368 

death,  370 
Valentinian  1 1.,  son  of  the  above,  370 

restoration  of,  427 

and  Maximus,  436,  439 

flight  to  Thessalonica,  439,  503 

assassination,  440,  504 
Valentinians,  the  edict  against,  136 
Valerian,  Emp.,  and  religion,  7 
Vegentinus,  and  Priscillianism,  430, 

Vetranio  proclaimed  as  Augustus, 

197 
Vettius  Agorius  Prastextatus,  Pras- 

torian  prefect — his  piety,  364 
death,  503 
Victory,  altar  of,  501,  504,  505 
Vincent,  Bp.  of  Capua,  181,  204 
Vitalis,  Bp.  of  Antioch,  326,  328, 473 
Vitellius — The  Servants  of  God  are 

hated  oj  the  World,  193 
Viventius,  Prefect  of  Rome,  363,  364 

Ydacius,  Bp.  of  Emerita  — cam- 
paign   against    Priscillianism, 
420-424 
imprisonment,  427 

Zebinas  beheaded,  35 

Zenobius,  priest  of  Sidon,  thrown 

into  the  sea,  39 
Zosimus,  498 


PRINTED   BY   OLIVER   AND   BOYD.   EDINBURGH. 


a;  /,    SI  • 

j>j«  'i^^  i.jS-' 


i^'r-f 


